4. Meet frequently with clients in-between steps.
a. Review identified issue and clients’ understanding of the issue. b. Support clients’ exploration of changes and solutions to which they are open. c. Remove barriers to change and connect with resources to support success in change. d. Clearly communicate and reiterate expectations around change including how success will be measured and timeline upon which success will be assessed.
5. Incorporate 4-Step Retention discussions into typical case management tasks. a. Add 4-Step Retention worksheet to goal plan, when appropriate. b. Reference housing retention engagements and discussions in progress notes.
6. Document everything including positive change, backslides, and neutral updates. a. Document specific follow-up dates or timelines in progress notes. b. Document resources or support offered and accepted by clients. c. Document successes and positive changes - Remember to celebrate the client! d. Document resources or support offered and declined by clients. e. Document barriers to change or progress.
f. Document attempts to engage in housing retention planning. g. Document pertinent case conferencing or collateral conversations.
7. Involve other supportive partners.
a. Link other service providers into plan and intervention (Brilliant Corners, Mental Health, Probation Officer, etc.). If consents are needed, obtain those first.
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
Permanent Housing Services (PHS)
Case Manager – Project Based Housing
Job Description
Job Title: Case Manager
Reports to: Program Manager
Status: Non-Exempt
SUMMARY
The Project Based Housing Case Manager will work with clients to assess housing stability, provide stabilization services, and coordinate multiple services to meet each client’s specific needs.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Maintain a case load of up to 20 clients for case management services
2. Ensure that medical and case management services to clients are reflective of the Community Model, which emphasizes customer choice, harm reduction, and psycho-social rehabilitation
3. Ensure that each client that is being case managed has an up-to-date and comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment, and that this assessment is used in collaboration with the client to create individualized case management plans designed to improve quality of life and improved health outcomes
4. Collaborate with each client to develop their individual service plan; review and update quarterly and upon completion of goals
5. Develop and maintain a complete, accurate, and current client file with all required documents and data; ensure all client paperwork and data collection is complete, timely, accurate, and current in agency records and electronic databases
6. Coordinate with DHS and HFH partners to ensure clients are connected to primary health care and to reduce need for emergency health care services
7. Maintain confidentiality of client files per HIPAA and all applicable guidelines
8. Responsible for coordinating appointments, transportation, and follow-up services for clients accessing primary health care, mental health care, recovery services, and who need community resources
9. Transport clients in your vehicle to various agencies and healthcare providers in the greater Los Angeles area to increase community support services and community reintegration
10. Develop effective, trusting relationships with clients, with a focus on facilitating independence and maintenance of improved physical and mental health
11. Assist in the screening, assessment, and enrollment of clients, including orientation to program policies, resources and goals
12. Maintain a current, thorough knowledge of community resources and utilize them to provide comprehensive, wrap-around services to clients
13. Assist clients with becoming involved in daily activities, scheduling and attending appointments, budgeting, socialization, health maintenance, sense of community, and progress in recovery
14. Work cooperatively and cohesively with other members of the staff team, including participation in weekly staff meetings and staff trainings, and on-going communication with property management staff.
15. Maintain up to date, accurate, and complete data and progress notes as required by the project and its funding sources
QUALIFICATIONS
1. Valid CA Driver’s license, reliable car, auto insurance, and an acceptable driving record
2. Able to transport Clients in your vehicle
3. Bachelor’s degree preferred; or a minimum four years’ experience working with homeless individuals, preferably those living with mental illness and/or substance addictions, or an equivalent combination of education and experience
4. Demonstrated knowledge of case management
5. Able to work in a high tolerance Harm Reduction model with Clients who have multiple barriers
6. Skill in non-violent crisis intervention
7. Computer literate; able to effectively use computerized database for client file management, with basic skills in Microsoft Word, Outlook, and Excel programs
8. Detail oriented with strong time management, organizational, written, verbal, interpersonal, and computer skills
9. Able to obtain and maintain CPR/1st Aid certification
10. Minimum 30 WPM typing speed preferred
WORK ENVIRONMENT
1. Combination of field and office environment
2. Regularly required to sit, stand, bend; occasionally lift or carry up to 35 lbs.
3. On occasion walk or drive to different local sites
4. Will necessitate working in busy and loud environments
5. Will be exposed to elements like cold, heat, dust, noise and odor
6. May need to bend, stoop, twist, and sit throughout the day
RESPONSIBILITIES COMMON TO ALL AGENCY EMPLOYEES
1. Maintain a safe work environment and confidentiality at all times
2. Be proactive, creative, and flexible in determining, evaluating, researching, and resolving issues
3. Organize and prioritize multiple activities to meet all external and internal deadlines
4. Maintain professional demeanor that reflects positively on the agency
5. Demonstrate respect and courtesy toward others
6. Able to thrive in a work environment emphasizing teamwork and collaboration
7. Respond in a timely manner in all aspects of communication
8. Work with minimum supervision
9. Perform other duties as assigned
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Employee Incumbent Name Employee Signature Date
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Permanent Housing Services
Clinical Case Manager
Job Description
Job Title: Clinical Case Manager – Project Bases Housing Dept: Permanent Housing Services
Status: Exempt
SUMMARY
As part of a multi-disciplinary team, the Clinical Case Manager will provide field and site based therapeutic services with clients in their homes to help them sustain permanent housing. The Clinical Case Manager’s primary responsibilities are to actively engage clients and provide intensive mental health and case management services through the use of evidence based practices that will ensure housing stability, self-sufficiency and community integration.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Assess mental health service needs of clients
2. Provide crisis intervention and clinical case management services to participants
3. Link clients with appropriate medical, mental health, substance abuse, and vocational resources
4. Assist clients in obtaining all benefits to which they are entitled
5. Assist clients in obtaining meaningful vocational and educational experiences
6. Provide opportunities for clients to build a supportive peer community
7. Facilitate life skills and coping skills workshops and support groups
8. Network with agency and outside service providers, ensuring client access to appropriate resources
9. Collaborate and communicate effectively with property managers and agency staff on behalf of clients
10. Provide, coordinate, and implement mental health and recovery support services with individual members
11. Develop effective, trusting relationships with members, with a focus on facilitating independence and maintenance of improved physical and mental health
12. Collaborate with each member to develop their individual service plan; review and update quarterly and/or at time of goal completion.
13. Assist members with becoming involved in daily activities, socialization, health maintenance, sense of community
14. Adhere to an emphasis on customer choice, harm reduction, and psycho-social rehabilitation.
15. Develop and maintain a complete, accurate, and current member file with all funder-required documents
16. Assure that all member paperwork and data collection is complete and up-to-date in the case management database
QUALIFICATIONS
1. Master’s degree in a mental health field
2. Registered with the board of behavioral sciences or ability to do so within the first 2 months of employment
3. Demonstrated knowledge of clinical case management
4. Knowledge of community resources
5. Able to work in a high-tolerance, harm reduction model with individuals who have multiple barriers
6. Strong clinical, team-building, charting, and non-violent crisis intervention skills
7. Computer literate; able to effectively use computerized database for client file management, with basic skills in Microsoft Word, Outlook, and Excel programs
8. Detail oriented with strong time management, organizational, written, verbal, and interpersonal skills
9. Valid CA Driver’s license, reliable car, auto insurance, and an acceptable driving record
10. Able to obtain and maintain CPR/1st Aid certification
11. Experience working with homeless individuals who are living with mental illness, substance addiction and physical health problems preferred
12. Minimum 30 WPM typing speed preferred
WORK ENVIRONMENT
1. Combination of field and office environment
2. Regularly required to sit, stand, bend; occasionally lift or carry up to 35 lbs.
3. On occasion walk or drive to different local sites
4. Will necessitate working in busy and loud environments
5. Will be exposed to elements like cold, heat, dust, noise and odor
6. May need to bend, stoop, twist, and sit throughout the day
RESPONSIBILITIES COMMON TO ALL AGENCY EMPLOYEES
1. Maintain a safe work environment and confidentiality at all times
2. Be proactive, creative, and flexible in determining, evaluating, researching, and resolving issues
3. Organize and prioritize multiple activities to meet all external and internal deadlines
4. Maintain professional demeanor that reflects positively on the agency
5. Demonstrate respect and courtesy toward others
6. Able to thrive in a work environment emphasizing teamwork and collaboration
7. Respond in a timely manner in all aspects of communication
8. Work with minimum supervision
9. Perform other duties as assigned
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Employee Incumbent Name Employee Signature Date
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Program Manager/Supervisor
Job Description
Job Title: Permanent Housing Program Manager/Supervisor Dept: Housing Department
Supervision: Case Manager
Status: Exempt
SUMMARY
The Program Manager will oversee and coordinate the activities of Case Manager that works with clients to assess housing stability, provide stabilization services, and coordinate multiple services to meet each client’s specific needs.
The Program Manager will also complete mental health assessments and provide case management services to ensure individuals experiencing homelessness due to loss of employment or other factors are successful in housing.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Oversee and direct Case Managers to achieve prescribed objectives
2. Daily coordination and oversight of program operations and program activities
3. Assist in recruitment, selection, training, supervision, and evaluation of direct service staff
4. Assess clients’ legal, financial, social, medical, psychological and other needs related to their current housing crisis
5. Assess clients’ eligibility for public assistance and provide referrals and advocacy to assist them in accessing those benefits
6. Assess clients’ ability to increase income through employment services, vocational training, and/or educational opportunities and assist then in accessing those services.
7. Develop effective, trusting relationships with clients.
8. Develop individualized housing stability plans.
9. Provide life-skills training and financial literacy training to enhance housing stability.
10. Coordinate medical, substance abuse, and mental health treatment when appropriate.
11. Mediate conflict between clients and their family and/or landlords to promote housing stability
12. Case Manager on behalf of clients to law enforcement, government agencies, social service agencies, educational institutions, medical and legal professionals, and others.
13. Maintain a current, thorough knowledge of community resources and utilize these to provide services to clients
14. Attended all meetings as required by Department of Health Services as well as any meetings as directed by supervisor.
15. Maintain a case load of up to 5 clients for case management services as assigned.
QUALIFICATIONS
1. Master’s degree (MSW, or equivalent degree) and registered with the BBS
2. Extensive knowledge of local and federal government benefits and entitlements
3. Knowledge of other social service providers
4. Able to work effectively with a wide range of constituencies
5. Detail oriented with excellent time management, organizational, written, verbal, interpersonal, computer, and cross-cultural communication skills
6. Current, valid California Driver’s License with an acceptable driving record
7. Able to work with minimum supervision
8. Minimum 30 WPM typing speed
9. Prior advocacy or academic experience in housing and/or homeless services preferred
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
1. On occasion walk or drive to different local sites throughout the day
2. Regularly required to sit, stand, bend and occasionally lift or carry up to 35 pounds
WORK ENVIRONMENT
1. Combination of field and office environment
2. May necessitate working in busy and loud environments
3. May be exposed to elements like cold, heat, dust, noise and odor
4. May need to bend, stoop, twist , and sit throughout the day
RESPONSIBILITIES COMMON TO ALL AGENCY EMPLOYEES
1. Maintain a safe work environment and confidentiality at all times
2. Be proactive, creative, and flexible in determining, evaluating, researching, and resolving issues
3. Organize and prioritize multiple activities to meet all external and internal deadlines
4. Maintain professional demeanor that reflects positively on the agency
5. Demonstrate respect and courtesy toward others
6. Able to thrive in a work environment emphasizing teamwork and collaboration
7. Respond in a timely manner in all aspects of communication
8. Work with minimum supervision
9. Perform other duties as assigned
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Employee Incumbent Name Employee Signature Date
Executive Director Name Executive Director Signature Date
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Letter of Commitment
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Staff Position Title Target Population Agency Location (A) FTE (B) Annual Salary
and Benefits
(A) x (B) =
Total Cost Funding Source
Clinical Case Manager PSH The People Concern On‐Site 1 $76,200 $76,200 DHS Case Manager (BA) PSH The People Concern On‐Site 1 $63,500 $63,500 DHS Program Manager PSH The People Concern On‐Site 0.2 $88,900 $17,780 DHS Director PSH The People Concern On‐Site 0.1 $115,570 $11,557 DHS Resident Services Coordinator General Affordable HCHC On‐Site 1 $63,500 $63,500 Cashflow $232,537
Other Expenses:
Training $2,400 DHS
Supplies $14,400 DHS
Mileage/Parking $2,400 DHS
Client
Personal/Medical $8,000 DHS
Adiminstrative
Overhead $21,600 DHS
Life Skills Classes $10,000 Cashflow
Other Expenses
Total: $58,800
Total Services
Budget: $291,337
Sources:
DHS $217,837
Cashflow $73,500
Total Staffing Costs:
Supportive Services Budget
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) DHS Funding Commitment
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix I
Supportive Services
Evidence of Success
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) The People Concern – Evidence of Success and Description of Outcomes TPC’s staff are dedicated and committed to serving their clients and supporting them to produce positive outcomes. This is best evidenced by TPC’s housing retention rate which in 2022 was 92%. TPC’s impact and success can also be measured in several other ways. Excerpts from TPC’s 2020 – 2021 and 2021 – 2022 Impact Reports are attached and describe the organization’s accomplishments in detail.
The Impact Report excerpts also provide data on beds provided, meals served, and other quantifiable outcomes of TPC’s efforts. A chart noting TPC’s extensive experience providing supportive services and intensive case management services (ICMS) to homeless, mentally ill, frequent users of public health systems, and other special needs populations is also attached.
TPC uses an information system as required by funders, including a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) database to track tenant service and engagement, as well as to evaluate and measure outcomes data. Service systems to be tracked in HMIS include physical health, mental health, substance use, legal, education, employment, on-site social/recreational, and case management. Case managers will have access to the system to document services provided and access client history. Program managers and directors across TPC access the system to monitor data quality and accuracy. The Director of Compliance and Evaluation provides an additional level of monitoring, technical assistance, and training to ensure data quality and the meeting of outputs and outcomes.
The tracking data includes frequency and timing of service. The data will be collected from referring service providers, and recorded, compiled and analyzed by TPC staff in order to monitor tenant progress toward their goals. Service utilization data of the tenants will be mapped against desired outcomes to determine progress and make mid-course changes in services as needed. Service utilization data may be shared (while respecting tenants’ anonymity and confidentiality) with appropriate external researchers in connection with ongoing efforts to measure the cost-effectiveness of supportive housing.
TPC also maintains a HOME for GOOD Client Satisfaction Survey to solicit resident feedback on ICMS performance, property management performance, and on-site residential security measures. The most recent survey opened in February 2023 and concluded in May 2023. Surveys were administered via paper handouts and online via the Microsoft Forms web platform and were advertised through direct phone calls and home visits with residents, during case management sessions, and on property flyers and newsletters. The surveys were administered to 22 sites and received favorable and helpful feedback to TPC and property management teams. The attached letter includes survey response rates per property and synthesized feedback on specific survey questions. Overall, tenant response rates increased since 2022. Responses indicated that tenants feel ICMS performance metrics are being met and they are receiving helpful, respectful, and culturally sensitive treatment and responses. Property management feedback varied site by site and focused on timeliness of property management communication or response to requests as well as general maintenance of each property.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Name of Lead Service Provider: The People Concern
Target Special Needs Population(s): Chronically homeless, frequent users of DHS/DMS Services, Mentally ill, Homeless Number Project Name& Address Beginning and End Date for Lead Service Provider
Months Providing
Services at the Project Type of Special Needs Population Number of SpecialNeeds Units Number of Total
Units
1 Burlington Family Apartments
409‐415 S. Burlington Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90057
8/1/20146 year3 months
Special needs homeless&
chronically homeless, adults and
families
21 30
2 Maryland Apartments
1340 Maryland St
Los Angeles, CA 90017
10/1/2001 to 7/2019 17 years7 months Homeless and chronically Homeless adults 30 30
3 La Primavera Apartments
1330 S. Olive St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
8/1/2004‐1/1/2019 14 years5 months Homeless and chronically Homeless adults 35 35
4 39 West Apartments
3885 S. Western Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90062
2/1/2009‐1/1/2019 11 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 33 33 5 Parker Apartments
725 S. Witmer Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
2/1/2009‐1/1/2019 11 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 32 32 6 Santos Plaza
3837S Western Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90062
5/19/2009 11 years
Homeless and Special needs
chronically homeless& mentally ill,
adults
19 50
7 LAMP LODGE
660 Stanford
Los Angeles, CA 90013
4/17/1991 29 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 36 36 8 City of Santa Monica
Shelter Plus Care ‐ Tenant Based Project 7/1/1998 22 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 105 105 9 HACLA Shelter Plus Care ‐ Tenant Based Project 5/1/2006 14 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 70 70 10 HACLA Shelter Plus Care ‐ Tenant Based Project 2/10/20119 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 40 40 11 HACLA TBSH 7/1/20137 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 50 50 12 HACoLA Shelter Plus Care ‐ Tenant Based Project 3/21/20137 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 26 26 13 HACoLA Shelter Plus Care ‐ Tenant Based Project 11/6/20119 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 40 40 14 HACoLA Shelter Plus Care ‐ Tenant Based Project 3/1/20173 years and7 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 75 75 15 Department of Health Services Housing for Health ‐ Housing for Health 6/30/20146 years Special needs chronically homeless
amd homeless& adults and
families
360 360
16 Department of Health Services Housing for Health ‐ Housing for Health 7/1/20155 years Special needs chronically homeless
amd homeless& adults and
families
200 200
17 Department of Health Services Housing for Health ‐ Housing for Health 7/1/20164 years Special needs chronically homeless
amd homeless& adults and
families
100 100
18 Tiki Apartments
7308 Marbrisa Ave,
Huntington Park, 90255
12/13/20172 years 11 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 35 36 20 Mosaic Gardens at Willowbrook
2213S Willowbrook Ave
Compton, CA 90222
3/22/20173 years and7 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 31 61 21 Arlington Square Apartments
3101 Venice Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90019
6/1/20173 years and4 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 47 48 22 Mosaic Gardens at Pomona
1680 S. Garey Ave
Pomona, CA 91766
10/1/20173 years Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 23 46 23 El Segundo Boulevard Apartments
535‐611 El Segundo Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90061
4/30/20182 years6 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 25 26 24 127th Street Apartments
550 West 127th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90044
4/30/20182 years6 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 109 109 25 PSH Colden
820W Colden Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90044
9/1/20182 years2 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 16 16 26 King 1101
1101‐1107 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Los Angeles, 90037
8/1/20182 years3 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 18 18 27 Mosaic Gardens at Westlake
111 S. Lucas Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90026
6/1/20182 years5 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 63 63 28 Linc Housing Nightengale Apartments
6218 Compton Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90044
7/1/20191 year4 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults 29 29 29 Insite Development ‐Kensington Villa1
45244 32nd Street West
Lancaster, CA 93536
11/6/20191 year4 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults 50 50 30 Insite Development ‐Kensington Villa 11
45244 32nd Street West
Lancaster, CA 93536
6/9/20202 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults 50 50 31 Arminta Square
11050W Arminta Street
Sun Valley, CA 91352
2/1/20217 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults and families 39 39 32 Spark at Midtown
1900‐1940 Long Beach Blvd
Long Beach, CA 90806
1/15/20218 months Special needs chronically homeless & mentally ill, adults 47 47
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 | Page
Home for Good Tenant Satisfaction Survey
Community: DHS Scattered Site - Downtown Date:
Thank you for taking the time to let us know about your experience in housing. Your answers are very important to us and will be kept anonymous. Please answer to the best of your ability. You may find it difficult to choose, but please select the best answer for you.
Your Property Management Company is:
Please answer the questions in this section related to your Property Manager:
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I believe property management staff treat me in a
respectful manner.
I live in a building that is well maintained.
I believe that property management responds to
my requests in a timely manner in regards to
repairs, maintenance, safety, etc.
Property management staff are sensitive to my
cultural background (race, religion, language,
gender, sexual orientation, etc.).
I feel like I can present suggestions or complaints
without losing my housing.
I am overall satisfied with the property
management staff.
2 | Page
Your Case Management Services Provider is:
Please answer the questions in this section relating to your Case Management staff:
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I believe that case management services staff
treat me in a respectful manner.
The case management services staff are helpful
in assisting me to connect to the services that I
need.
I can depend on case management services staff
to help me keep my housing.
Case management services staff are sensitive to
my cultural background (race, religion, language,
gender, sexual orientation, etc.).
I can contact case management services staff
whenever I need help.
I am overall satisfied with the case management
services staff.
The People Concern
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 | Page
Please answer the questions in this section relating to your overall community:
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I feel safe in my home.
I feel safe in my building.
I feel safe in my neighborhood.
I feel a part of my building’s community.
I feel a part of the neighborhood community.
I feel like my housing has contributed to my
health and well-being.
Public transportation, grocery stores, the post
office, childcare, libraries, etc. are close to where
I live or easy for me to get to.
I would recommend this Permanent Housing
Program to other individuals experiencing
homelessness.
Additional Comments:
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2116 Arlington Ave, Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90018 Tel: 323.334.9000 Fax: 323. 940.4759 www.thepeopleconcern.org Tax ID: #95-6143865
June 30, 2023
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services
Housing for Health, Intensive Case Management Services program 238 East 6th Street
Los Angeles, California 90014
Attn: Aomori Carias
Project-based Housing HFH Program Managers
RE: Results of FY 2022-2023 CLIENT SATISFATION SURVEY
One of our goals as service providers within Project-based Housing (PBH) settings is to partner with property management staff, housing developers, and residential services staff to create an inclusive survey that functions as an evaluation of each partners’ services and as an assessment of community safety and integration. We are committed to continued improvement of this survey tool, its administration, and subsequent analysis of results to meet the administrative and service needs of all Project-based Housing partners and improve programming for clients.
In February through May 2023, our PBH ICMS Teams rolled out the 2020 adapted version of the HOME for GOOD Client Satisfaction Survey (see Attachment A for an example of the English and Spanish language versions). This year’s surveys were rolled out in two modalities including paper surveys Microsoft Forms online surveys. ICMS Staff engaged clients in survey participation by making phone calls, knocking on doors, leaving surveys with return envelopes at client units, advertising this feedback opportunity in flyers or newsletters, and completing during case management sessions, depending on client preference.
Below please find our response rates for each program receiving DHS ICMS funding:
Project-based Site 2022 Response Rates 2023 Response Rates 1 1101 King Apartments 78% 100%
2 127th Street Apartments / El Segundo Apartments* 0% 18% 3 82nd Street Apartments 56% 50%
4 Alexandria Apartments 40% 49%
5 Amani Apartments New as of FY 22-23 17%
6 Arlington Square 17% 28%
7 Arminta Square 51% 63%
8 Burlington Family Apartments 86% 76%
9 Colden Apartments 0% 41%
10 Hillhaven* New as of FY 22-23 0%
11 Kensington Campus 47% 15%
12 Lamp Lodge New as of FY 22-23 36%
13 Laurel Court (Roscoe)* New as of FY 22-23 0%
14 NoHo Apartments New as of FY 22-23 46%
15 Parthenia Place New as of FY 22-23 55%
16 Pico Square New as of FY 22-23 54%
17 Rosa de Castilla New as of FY 22-23 63%
18 Santos Plaza 38% 44%
19 The Nightingale 14% 38%
Continued on next page…
2116 Arlington Ave, Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90018 Tel: 323.334.9000 Fax: 323. 940.4759 www.thepeopleconcern.org Tax ID: #95-6143865
20 Tiki Apartments 14% 54%
21 Watts Works New as of FY 22-23 63%
22 Westhaven New as of FY 22-23 20%
*Sites were still in initial lease-up transition phases and prioritized time elsewhere to meet program and client needs resulting in no survey responses for this fiscal year.
One of our identified process improvements stemming from prior year’s analysis was extension of the outreach phase in order to increase response rates. This was the second year we initiated survey administration efforts in February and closed survey responses in May. We saw continued increase in response rates at the majority of sites (9 of 12 existing sites) and over 50% of sites surveyed this year reached response rates above 45% of the overall building capacity.
Of those Clients who completed the survey, an average of 94% of responses reported “strongly agree” or “agree” to all six questions that assessed ICMS performance (respectful treatment, accessibility, helpfulness with resource connection, support with housing stability, and sensitivity to culture and identity). One Client shared a write-in comment stating, “Elisa goes above and beyond to help me. We have built a good partnership and I feel comfortable going to her for help and support,” which exemplifies the goal of our ICMS program – a comfortable, supportive environment within which we partner together with clients to remain housed, healthy, and safe.
Regarding assessment of Property Management, an average of 82% of responses indicated satisfaction with the same six performance areas. Within the responses indicating dissatisfaction, the areas varied widely by building which reflected the strengths and gaps within site-based Property Management and maintenance teams with most frequent critiques related to timeliness of communication or responses to issues presented and general maintenance of the properties.
The responses to the two newest questions assessing security measures resulted in similar responses rate compared to last with 76% of clients reporting their Project-based Housing sites had sufficient security measures and 77% reporting that security staff provide respectful treatment which is a slight improvement from last year’s rates.
Our TPC Project-based Housing (PBH) Leadership staff continue to optimistically and enthusiastically engage site-based interdisciplinary teams (ICMS and Property Management) in conversations around the adapted 4-step Housing Retention Procedure with the hope of improving housing stability and communication on-site which has the potential to subsequently improve relations between clients and property staff. It remains a goal of our programs to strengthen our consistency and efficacy within the 4-step Housing Retention Procedure which hinges on our internal leadership and role modeling of problem-solving and accountability in order to best serve clients with transparent, kind, and clear joint communication and help within housing.
The People Concern is dedicated to providing quality services to our Clients and proactive collaboration with PBH partners to enrich individual and community wellness. Our ICMS teams will continue to strive to provide Housing-First, Client-centered, Harm-Reduction focused, Trauma-informed, Anti-Racist case management while navigating collaborations with Property Management and community stakeholders. We look forward to meeting new dynamic Clients when we expand our services to additional PBH sites launching this fiscal year with your partnership.
Please reach out if we can provide any additional information or follow-up regarding the results described.
Melissa Vollbrecht, LCSW Julie DeRose, LMFT
Deputy Chief Programs Officer, Project-based Housing Chief Programs Officer of Permanent Housing The People Concern The People Concern
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix J
Detailed Development Pro Forma
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) PROJECT SUMMARY:
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS INPUT
Tax Credits 4.00%
TCAC Housing Type Large Family
Qualified Census Tract ("QCT") No
Difficult to Develop Area ("DDA") Yes
Resource Area High Resource
City of Los Angeles No
Are UMRs Applicable? Yes
Federal Tax Credit Pricing $0.94
State Tax Credit Pricing $0.88
Construction Term
Months of Construction 20
Months until Conversion after Construction Completion6
Total Months from startof construction through conversion 26 Permanent Sources Per Unit Interest Rate Amo (in yrs)% Notes Permanent Loan $ 9,794,409 $ 75,342 6.50% 30 10.06% 15 year term HCD - MHP $ - $ - 3.00% 55 0.00%
HCD - AHSC $ 25,000,000 $ 192,308 3.00% 55 25.68%
CalHFA MIP $ - $ - 3.00% 55 0.00%
Santa Monica - Ground Lease $ - $ - 3.00% 55 0.00%
LACDA - AHTF/HOME $ - $ - 3.00% 55 0.00%
City of Santa Monica $ - $ - 4.00% 55 0.00%
HCD - IIG $ 6,000,000 $ 46,154 6.16%
FHLBSF - AHP $ - $ - 0.00%
Deferred Developer Fee $ 300,000 $ 2,308 0.31%
GP Equity $ 100 $ 1 0.00%
GP Contribution (Dev Fee) $ - $ - 0.00%
Federal Tax Credit Equity $ 45,373,546 $ 349,027 46.61% State Tax Credit Equity $ 10,872,986 $ 83,638 11.17%
TOTAL $ 97,341,041 $ 748,777
Surplus/(Gap): $ 0
Construction Sources Per Unit Interest Rate Term (Months) % Notes Construction Loan - Tax Exempt $ 49,197,995 $ 378,446 7.00% 26 50.54% Construction Loan - Taxable $ 24,984,179 $ 192,186 7.50% 26 25.67% HCD - MHP $ - $ - 26 0.00%
HCD - AHSC $ - $ - 26 0.00%
CalHFA MIP $ - $ - 26 0.00%
Santa Monica - Ground Lease $ - $ - 0.00% 26 0.00%
LACDA - AHTF/HOME $ - $ - 3.00% 26 0.00%
City of Santa Monica $ - $ - 4.00% 26 0.00%
HCD - IIG $ 6,000,000 $ 46,154 26 6.16%
FHLBSF - AHP $ - $ - 26 0.00%
Costs Deferred Until Conversion $ 2,797,134 $ 21,516 2.87% Deferred Developer Fee $ 300,000 $ 2,308
GP Equity $ 100 $ 1 0.00%
GP Contribution (Dev Fee) $ - $ -
State + Federal Tax Credit Equity $ 14,061,633 $ 108,166 14.45% TOTAL $ 97,341,041 $ 748,777
Surplus/(Gap) $ -
LIHTC EQUITY PAY-IN SCHEDULE DEVELOPER FEE PAY-IN SCHEDULE DATE Closing 10.0% $ 5,624,653 30.0% $ 660,000
25% Construction Completion 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ -
50% Construction Completion 15.0% $ 8,436,980 5.0% $ 110,000 75% Construction Completion 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ -
100% Consturction Completion 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ -
Conversion 74.8% $ 42,084,899 60.5% $ 1,330,000
8609 0.2% $ 100,000 4.5% $ 100,000
TOTAL 100.0% $ 56,246,532 100.0% $ 2,200,000
Deferred Fee $ 300,000
TOTAL $ 2,500,000
8609
TOTAL
Closing
25% Construction Completion
50% Construction Completion
75% Construction Completion
100% Consturction Completion
Conversion
Development Budget
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
Square Footage: 100% 0%
Total Cost Per Unit Residential Commercial Deferred Eligible Basis Acquisition Cost
Land Cost $0 $0 $0 $0
Acquisition Interest Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0
Acquisition Loan Fees $0 $0 $0 $0
Predevelopment Interest Reserve $100,000 $769 $100,000 $0 $100,000 Predevelopment Loan Fees $15,000 $115 $15,000 $0 $15,000 Predev. Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0
Predev. Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0
Legal - Acquisition/PreDev $0 $0 $0 $0
Title and Recording - Acquisition/Predev $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal: $115,000 $885 $115,000 $0 $0 $115,000
Construction Costs Months of Construction 20
Demolition $0 $0 $0
Site Work $ 7,349,254 $56,533 $7,349,254 $0 $7,349,254
Parking $ 10,302,059 $79,247 $10,302,059 $10,302,059
Offsite Work (eligible) $0 $0 $0 $0
Offsite Work (ineligible) $0 $0 $0
Env. Remediation $0 $0 $0
Structures Direct Construction Cost $58,675,814 $ 41,024,500 $315,573 $41,024,500 $0 $41,024,500 Contractor Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General Requirements 7.00% $4,107,307 $31,595 $4,107,307 $4,107,307 Contractor Overhead 4.00% $2,347,033 $18,054 $2,347,033 $2,347,033 Contractor Profit 3.00% $1,760,274 $13,541 $1,760,274 $1,760,274 Performance and Payment Bond 1.25% $733,448 $5,642 $733,448 $733,448 General Liability Insurance Construction Contract 1.25% $733,448 $5,642 $733,448 $733,448 $68,357,323 $525,826 $0
Hard Cost Contingency (Owner) 10.00% $6,835,732 $52,583 $6,835,732 $0 $6,835,732 Subtotal: $75,193,055 $578,408 $75,193,055 $0 $0 $75,193,055 Architecture & Engineering
Architectural Design and Supervision % of Hard Cost: 4.50% $3,383,687 $26,028 $3,383,687 $0 $3,383,687 Reimbursables $50,000 $385 $50,000 $0 $50,000
Engineering Per Unit $2,000 $260,000 $2,000 $260,000 $0 $260,000 Subtotal: $3,693,687 $28,413 $3,693,687 $0 $0 $3,693,687 Construction Loan Costs
Construction Loan Interest - TEB $4,477,018 $4,477,000 $34,438 $4,477,000 $0 $2,954,820 Construction Loan Interest - Taxable $2,435,957 $2,436,000 $18,738 $2,436,000 $1,607,760 Lender Origination Fees Fee %: $741,822 $742,000 $5,708 $742,000 $0 $742,000 Lender Expenses 1.000% $50,000 $385 $50,000 $0 $50,000
Title/Recording/Escrow $150,000 $1,154 $150,000 $0 $150,000 Taxes Tax Rate: 1.25% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Insurance Per Unit $7,700 $1,001,000 $7,700 $1,001,000 $0 $1,001,000 Other: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other: $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal: $8,856,000 $68,123 $8,856,000 $0 $0 $6,505,580 Perm Loan Costs
Loan Fees Fee %: 1.000% $97,944 $753 $97,944 $0 $97,944 Title/Recording/Escrow - Perm $15,000 $115 $15,000 $0 $15,000 Subtotal: $112,944 $869 $112,944 $0 $112,944 $0
Legal
Borrower - Construction $50,000 $385 $50,000 $0 $50,000 Borrower - Partnership Organization $5,000 $38 $5,000 $0 Borrower - Perm Closing $20,000 $154 $20,000 $0 $20,000 Borrower - Syndication $50,000 $385 $50,000 $0
Legal - Construction Lender $70,000 $538 $70,000 $0
Legal - Permanent Lender $20,000 $154 $20,000 $0 $20,000 Other $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal: $215,000 $1,654 $215,000 $0 $40,000 $50,000
Reserves $0 $0 $0 $0
Transit Pass Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Replacement Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Capitalized Operating Reserve $552,447 $4,250 $552,447 $0 $552,447 Transition Reserve $607,173 $4,671 $607,173 $0 $607,173 Subtotal: $1,159,620 $8,920 $1,159,620 $0 $1,159,620 $0
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Development Budget
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
Square Footage: 100% 0%
Total Cost Per Unit Residential Commercial Deferred Eligible Basis TCAC and CDLAC and other Financing Fees
TCAC Application Fee $2,000 $15 $2,000 $0
TCAC Reservation Fee 0.10% $48,270 $371 $48,270 $0
TCAC Monitoring Fee Per Unit $410 $52,070 $401 $52,070 $0 $52,070 CDLAC Application and Filing Fees $17,219 $132 $17,219 $0 CDIAC Fee $5,000 $38 $5,000 $0
Issuer Application Fee $3,000 $23 $3,000 $0
Issuer Fee - Upfront $122,995 $946 $122,995 $0
Issuer Fee - Upfront for Construction $49,198 $378 $49,198 $0 Trustee Fee $6,250 $48 $6,250 $0
Issuer Financial Advisor $60,000 $462 $60,000 $0
Bond Counsel $55,000 $423 $55,000 $0
Trustee Legal Fees $5,000 $38 $5,000 $0
Misc Bond Issuance Costs $10,000 $77 $10,000 $0
Bond Issuance Contingency Costs of Bond Issuance $348,662 $15,000 $115 $15,000 $0 LACDA Fees $0 $0 $0 $0
LAHD Fees $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0
A Subtotal: $451,002 $3,469 $451,002 $0 $52,070 $0
Other Costs
Development Impact Fees Per Unit $6,000 $780,000 $6,000 $780,000 $0 $780,000 Local Permits and Fees / Utility Fees Rate: 3.00% $2,050,720 $15,775 $2,050,720 $0 $2,050,720 Furnishings $250,000 $1,923 $250,000 $0 $250,000
Accounting - Audit/Cost Cert $30,000 $231 $30,000 $0
Deputy Inspections/Testing $3,000 $390,000 $3,000 $390,000 $0 $390,000 Construction Consultants (Owner's Rep) $6,500 $130,000 $1,000 $130,000 $0 $130,000 LEED/Title 24/CASp Consultants $75,000 $577 $75,000 $0 $75,000 Survey and Soils $50,000 $385 $50,000 $0 $50,000
Entitlements / CEQA Consultants $50,000 $385 $50,000 $0 Appraisal $10,000 $77 $10,000 $0 $10,000
Market Study $15,000 $115 $15,000 $0 $15,000
Environmental Audit (Phase I/II/Toxic Report) $60,000 $462 $60,000 $0 $60,000 Relocation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Marketing/Lease-up Expense Cost/door: $700 $88,900 $684 $88,900 $0 Lease Up Fee Cost/door: $250 $31,750 $244 $31,750
Soft Cost Contingency $16,967,251 5.00% $848,363 $6,526 $848,363 $0 $848,363 Utility Connection Fees $110,000 $846 $110,000 $0 $110,000 Other LADWP Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other LAHD Wage Monitor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal: $4,969,732 $38,229 $4,969,732 $0 $0 $4,769,082 Developer Fees & Costs
Developer Fee $2,500,000 $19,231 $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000 Syndication Consultant $75,000 $577 $75,000 $0 $2,500
Admin and Organizational $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal: $2,575,000 $19,808 $2,575,000 $0 $2,500 $2,500,000 TOTAL: $97,341,041 $748,777 $97,341,041 $0 $1,367,134 $92,826,405 Rental Income
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
#REF! #REF!
Avg. Affordability: 49.53%
TCAC 9% Score: 50
UNIT MIX
AMI 0-Bed 1-Bed 2- Bed 3-Bed 4-Bed Total % of Total
20% - - - - - 0%
30% - 40 - - 40 31%
40% - - - - - - 0%
50% - - - 26 - 26 20%
60% 13 8 27 - - 48 38%
70% - - 7 6 13 10%
80% - - - - - - 0%
Manager's Unit(s) - - 3 - - 3
Total: TCAC 13 48 37 32 - 130
% of Total (no mgr) 10.24% 37.8% 26.8% 25.2% 0.00%
Special Needs - - - - - - 0.0%
Gen. Affordable - - - 0.0%
PBV -
PBVASH 0 -
INCOME SCHEDULE
Units
Gross
Monthly
Rent/Unit
Utility
Allowance
Net Monthly
Rent/Unit
Total Montly
Net Income
Total Annual
Net Income
HUDassisted
Unit
Subsidy
Income
Net Monthly
Subsidy
Income
Monthly Subsidy
Income
Annual
Subsidy
Income
Tier 1: 20% AMI Level Santa Monica Santa Monica PBV
0-Bed - $ 441 $ 74 $ 367 $ - $ - - 1512 $ 1,512 - -
1-Bed - $ 473 $ 98 $ 375 $ - $ - - 1930 $ 1,930 - -
2-Bed - $ 567 $ 134 $ 433 $ - $ - - 2640 $ 2,640 - -
3-Bed - $ 655 $ 152 $ 503 $ - $ - - 3366 $ 3,366 - - $ $ $ $ $ - - -
Tier 2: 30% AMI Level Santa Monica PBV
0-Bed - $ 661 $ 74 $ 587 $ - $ - - 1,512 851 - -
1-Bed 40 $ 709 $ 98 $ 611 $ 24,440 $ 293,280 40 1,930 1,221 48,840 586,080 2-Bed - $ 851 $ 134 $ 717 $ - $ - - 2,640 1,789 - -
3-Bed - $ 983 $ 152 $ 831 $ - $ - - 3,366 2,383 - - $ , $ $ , 03 $ $ ( , 0) 40 293,280 586,080
Tier 3: 40% AMI Level
0-Bed - $ 883 $ 74 $ 809 $ - $ -
1-Bed - $ 946 $ 98 $ 848 $ - $ -
2-Bed - $ 1,135 $ 134 $ 1,001 $ - $ -
3-Bed - $ 1,311 $ 152 $ 1,159 $ - $ - $ , $ $ , $ $ 3, 86 ,9 9 - - -
Tier 4: 50% AMI Level
0-Bed - $ 1,103 $ 74 $ 1,029 $ - $ -
1-Bed - $ 1,182 $ 98 $ 1,084 $ - $ -
2-Bed - $ 1,418 $ 134 $ 1,284 $ - $ -
3-Bed 26 $ 1,639 $ 152 $ 1,487 $ 38,662 $ 463,944 $ , $ $ , $ $ 3, 86 ,5 5 26 463,944 -
Tier 5: 60% AMI Level
0-Bed 13 $ 1,324 $ 74 $ 1,250 $ 16,250 $ 195,000
1-Bed 8 $ 1,419 $ 98 $ 1,321 $ 10,568 $ 126,816
2-Bed 27 $ 1,702 $ 134 $ 1,568 $ 42,336 $ 508,032
3-Bed - $ 1,967 $ 152 $ 1,815 $ - $ - ed $ , $ 0 $ ,3 $ $ 3, 86 , 48 829,848 -
Tier 6: 70% AMI Level
0-Bed - $ 1,545 $ 74 $ 1,471 $ - $ -
1-Bed - $ 1,655 $ 98 $ 1,557 $ - $ -
2-Bed 7 $ 1,986 $ 134 $ 1,852 $ 12,964 $ 155,568
3-Bed 6 $ 2,295 $ 152 $ 2,143 $ 12,858 $ 154,296
4-Bed - $ 2,825 $ 107 $ 2,718 $ - $ -
13 309,864 -
Tier 6: 80% AMI Level
0-Bed - $ 1,766 $ 74 $ 1,692 $ - $ -
1-Bed - $ 1,892 $ 98 $ 1,794 $ - $ -
2-Bed - $ 2,270 $ 134 $ 2,136 $ - $ -
3-Bed - $ 2,623 $ 152 $ 2,471 $ - $ -
4-Bed - $ 3,229 $ 107 $ 3,122 $ - $ -
- - -
TOTAL INCOME 1,896,936 586,080
MISCELLANEOUS INCOME PER-UNIT
MONTHLY
TOTAL
MONTHLY
TOTAL
ANNUAL 11,721,600
Laundry/Vending $ 5 $ 650 $ 7,800
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Operating Budget
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
INCOME
Scheduled Gross Income $1,896,936
Operating Subsidy Premium $ 586,080
Miscellaneous Income $ 7,800
Vacancy Loss (Rental Income) 5.00% $ (94,847)
Vacancy Loss (Operating Subsidy) 10.00% $ (58,608)
Vacancy Loss (Miscellaneous Income) 5.00% $ (390)
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME$2,336,971
EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL Per Unit
Units 130
Admninstrative
Advertising $ 24 $ 3,141
Legal $ 87 $ 11,331
Accounting/Audit $ 185 $ 24,068
Security $ 142 $ 18,481
Misc. Admin/Telephone $ 238 $ 30,916
Total Administrative $ 87,937
Utilities
Electricity $ 1,000 $ 130,000
Gas $ - $ -
Cable & Internet $ 155 $ 20,150
Sewer $ 360 $ 46,772
Water $ 360 $ 46,772
Total Utilities $ 243,694
Payroll/Payroll Taxes
Maintenance Payroll $ 449 $ 58,400
On-Site Manager $ 1,2693 $ 165,000
Payroll Taxes/Benefits $ 841 $ 109,360
Total Payroll/Payroll Taxes $ 332,760
Insurance $ 1,600 $ 208,000
Real Estate Taxes/Assessments $ 96 $ 12,500
Maintenance
Painting $ 186 $ 24,140
Repairs $ 302 $ 39,238
Trash Removal $ 237 $ 30,757
Exterminating $ 92 $ 12,022
Grounds $ 122 $ 15,896
Elevator $ 130 $ 16,936
Misc. Expenses $ 417 $ 54,156
Total Maintenance $ 193,145
Replacement Reserve $ 500 $ 65,000
Management Fee (6% of Gross Effective Income) $ 1,079 per unit $ 140,218 Other
Services $ 77 $ 10,000
Ground Lease Payment $ 0 $ 1
Other: Resident Service Coordinator $ 385 $ 50,000
Other:
Other: Business Licenses and Fee $ 54 $ 7,046
Other: Monitoring Fees $ 32 $ 4,100
Annual Issuer Fee/Trustee/Admin Fee (issuer s $ 58 $ 7,500 Total Other $ 78,648
TOTAL EXPENSES - RESIDENTIAL PUPY Total
Including Reserves $ 10,476$1,361,901
Without reserves and services $ 9,371$1,218,253
Without taxes, reserves, and services $ 9,275$1,205,753 UMR REQUIRED DEBT SERVICE 0.42% 105,000
NET AVAILABLE INCOME FOR PERMANENT LOAN $ 870,070
Below The Line
Asset Management Fee - LP $ 10,000
Asset Management Fee - GP $ 15,000
LIHTC Calcs
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP YES
#REF! #REF! NO
Threshold Basis Calculation:
Basis Limits Units 9% 4% Threshold Basis
Studio 13 $ 341,094 $ 341,094 $ 4,434,222
1-Bed 48 $ 393,278 $ 393,278 $ 18,877,344
2-Bed 34 $ 474,400 $ 474,400 $ 16,129,600
3-Bed 32 $ 607,232 $ 607,232 $ 19,431,424
4-Bed0 $ 676,494 $ 676,494 $ -
Manager's 3 $ 474,400 $ 474,400 $ 1,423,200
Total: Unadjusted Threshold Basis $ 60,295,790
Threshold Basis Limit Increases
Prevailing Wage 20% Yes $ 12,059,158
Project Labor Agreement 5% No $ -
Parking Beneath Units (no tuck under) 10% No $ -
Day-Care Center 2% No $ -
100% Special needs 2% No $ -
Special Features (up to 10% Choose options below.) 0% $ - Onsite renewable energy of 50% of annual use 5% No
Onsite renewable energy of 75% of annual use 2% No
New construction 45% more efficient than current standards 4% No Rehab projects 80% more energy efficient 4% No
Irrigated only with reclaimed water, grey water, or rainwater 1% No Community Gardens, at least 60 sq. ft. for units 1% No
Environmentally friendly flooring in kitchens, living rooms, and bathrooms(no VOC backing). See application 1% No Environmentally friendly flooring in all common areas. See application 2% No Meet US EPA Indoor Air Plus Program 2% No
Seismic Upgrading (lesser of 15% of unadjusted eligible basis or actual costs)(enter actual costs) 15% $ - Local Development Impact Fees
95% of upper floor units are elevator accessible 10% Yes $ 6,029,579 Type I Construction: 95% of development is Type I construction 15% No $ - Type III Construction: 95% of development is Type III or Type I/Type III Construction 10% Yes $ 6,029,579 9% Threshold Basis Limit for 2-bedroom <= $400K and in High or Highest Resource Opportunity Map Area 10% No $ - + 1% basis for each 1% of units income qualified to 50%-36% AMI 20% Yes $ 12,344,020 + 2% basis for each 1% of units income qualified to 35% AMI and below 63% Yes $ 37,981,600 Total Threshold Basis Limit Increases $ 134,739,726
FEDERAL TAX CREDITS
ACQ. CONST./ REHAB TOTAL
TOTAL ELIGIBLE COSTS $ 92,826,405 $ 92,826,405
Less:
Business Energy Tax Credits (Res. Portion) $ - $ -
Non-Eligible (Federal/Grant Financing) $ - $
-
ELIGIBLE BASIS $ 92,826,405 $ 92,826,405
THRESHOLD BASIS LIMIT $ 134,739,726
REQUESTED ELIGIBLE BASIS $ 92,826,405 $ 92,826,405
Equ LESS: VOLUNTARY REDUCTION $ - $ -
TOTAL REQUESTED UNADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS $ 92,826,405 $ 92,826,405 QCT, DDA or OTHER HIGH COST ADJUSTMENT 130%
ADJUSTED ELIGIBLE BASIS $ 120,674,327 $ 120,674,327
APPLICABLE FRACTION 100%
QUALIFIED CREDIT BASIS $ 120,674,327 $ 120,674,327
CREDIT RATE 4.00%
MAXIMUM ANNUAL CREDIT AMOUNT $ 4,826,973 $ 4,826,973
MAXIMUM TOTAL CREDIT AMOUNT $ 48,269,730 $ 48,269,730
$ 97,341,041
$ 41,094,509
$ 45,373,546
$ 86,468,055
$ 10,872,986
$ 12,355,666
Credit Rate 13% 30%
$ - $ 27,847,922 $ 12,355,666
STATE TAX CREDIT EQUITY $ - $ 10,872,986 $ 10,872,986
State Tax Credits Needed
MAXIMUM TOTAL CREDIT AMOUNT
STATE TAX CREDITS (if applicable)
Total Development Cost
Non-Tax Credit Sources
Federal Tax Credit Equity
Non-State Tax Credit Sources
Remaining Need
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Cashflow
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
Inflation
Rental Income:
Resident Rent 2.50%
Subsidy Rent 2.50%
Laundry Income 2.50%
Gross Income
Vacancy Loss:
Resident Rent 5.00%
Subsidy Rent 10.00%
Laundry Income 5.00%
Total Vacancy Loss
Gross Effective Income
Operating Expenses:
Management Fee 3.50%
Replacement Reserve 0.00%
Real Estate Taxes 2.00%
Issuer Fee 0.00%
Additional Fees 3.50%
LACDA Monitoring Fee 0.00%
Services Fee 2.50%
Other Operating Expenses 3.50%
Total Expenses
Cashflow before Debt Service
Ratio/Rate
HCD Payment 0.42%
Net Income Available for Debt Service
Permanent Loan 1.15
Combined DSCR
Cashflow after debt service
Fees
LP Management Fe 3.50%
GP Management Fee 3.50%
Def. Dev.Fee 300,000
Remaining dev fee
Cashflow for distribution
Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 2,311,232 2,369,013 2,428,238 2,488,944 2,551,168 2,614,947 2,680,321 2,747,329 2,816,012 2,886,412 2,958,573 3,032,537 3,108,351 3,186,059 3,265,711 3,347,354 3,431,037 714,082 731,934 750,232 768,988 788,212 807,918 828,116 848,819 870,039 891,790 914,085 936,937 960,360 984,369 1,008,979 1,034,203 1,060,058 9,504 9,741 9,985 10,234 10,490 10,752 11,021 11,297 11,579 11,869 12,165 12,469 12,781 13,101 13,428 13,764 14,108 3,034,817 3,110,688 3,188,455 3,268,166 3,349,871 3,433,617 3,519,458 3,607,444 3,697,630 3,790,071 3,884,823 3,981,943 4,081,492 4,183,529 4,288,118 4,395,321 4,505,204 (115,562) (118,451) (121,412) (124,447) (127,558) (130,747) (134,016) (137,366) (140,801) (144,321) (147,929) (151,627) (155,418) (159,303) (163,286) (167,368) (171,552) (71,408) (73,193) (75,023) (76,899) (78,821) (80,792) (82,812) (84,882) (87,004) (89,179) (91,408) (93,694) (96,036) (98,437) (100,898) (103,420) (106,006) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(475) (487) (499) (512) (525) (538) (551) (565) (579) (593) (608) (623) (639) (655) (671) (688) (705) (187,445) (192,131) (196,934) (201,858) (206,904) (212,077) (217,379) (222,813) (228,383) (234,093) (239,945) (245,944) (252,093) (258,395) (264,855) (271,476) (278,263) 2,847,372 2,918,557 2,991,521 3,066,309 3,142,966 3,221,541 3,302,079 3,384,631 3,469,247 3,555,978 3,644,878 3,735,999 3,829,399 3,925,134 4,023,263 4,123,844 4,226,940 184,641 191,103 197,792 204,714 211,879 219,295 226,971 234,915 243,137 251,646 260,454 269,570 279,005 288,770 298,877 309,338 320,164 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 14,646 14,939 15,237 15,542 15,853 16,170 16,493 16,823 17,160 17,503 17,853 18,210 18,574 18,946 19,325 19,711 20,105 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 80,519 83,337 86,253 89,272 92,397 95,631 98,978 102,442 106,027 109,738 113,579 117,555 121,669 125,927 130,335 134,897 139,618 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12,184 12,489 12,801 13,121 13,449 13,785 14,130 14,483 14,845 15,216 15,597 15,987 16,386 16,796 17,216 17,646 18,087 1,403,106 1,452,215 1,503,042 1,555,649 1,610,097 1,666,450 1,724,776 1,785,143 1,847,623 1,912,290 1,979,220 2,048,493 2,120,190 2,194,397 2,271,200 2,350,692 2,432,967 1,767,595 1,826,582 1,887,626 1,950,799 2,016,175 2,083,831 2,153,847 2,226,306 2,301,292 2,378,894 2,459,203 2,542,314 2,628,324 2,717,335 2,809,453 2,904,784 3,003,442 1,079,777 1,091,975 1,103,895 1,115,510 1,126,792 1,137,709 1,148,232 1,158,325 1,167,955 1,177,084 1,185,675 1,193,686 1,201,075 1,207,799 1,213,810 1,219,060 1,223,499 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 974,777 986,975 998,895 1,010,510 1,021,792 1,032,709 1,043,232 1,053,325 1,062,955 1,072,084 1,080,675 1,088,686 1,096,075 1,102,799 1,108,810 1,114,060 1,118,499 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888
1.27 1.29 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.44 231,889 244,087 256,007 267,622 278,904 289,821 300,344 310,437 320,067 329,196 337,787 345,798 353,187 359,911 365,922 371,172 375,611 13,168 13,629 14,106 14,600 15,111 15,640 16,187 16,753 17,340 17,947 18,575 19,225 19,898 20,594 21,315 22,061 22,833 19,752 20,443 21,159 21,900 22,666 23,459 24,280 25,130 26,010 26,920 27,862 28,838 29,847 30,891 31,973 33,092 34,250 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
198,969 210,014 220,742 231,123 241,127 250,723 259,876 268,554 276,717 284,329 291,349 297,735 333,289 339,317 344,607 349,111 352,778
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Cashflow
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
Inflation
Rental Income:
Resident Rent 2.50%
Subsidy Rent 2.50%
Laundry Income 2.50%
Gross Income
Vacancy Loss:
Resident Rent 5.00%
Subsidy Rent 10.00%
Laundry Income 5.00%
Total Vacancy Loss
Gross Effective Income
Operating Expenses:
Management Fee 3.50%
Replacement Reserve 0.00%
Real Estate Taxes 2.00%
Issuer Fee 0.00%
Additional Fees 3.50%
LACDA Monitoring Fee 0.00%
Services Fee 2.50%
Other Operating Expenses 3.50%
Total Expenses
Cashflow before Debt Service
Ratio/Rate
HCD Payment 0.42%
Net Income Available for Debt Service
Permanent Loan 1.15
Combined DSCR
Cashflow after debt service
Fees
LP Management Fe 3.50%
GP Management Fee 3.50%
Def. Dev.Fee 300,000
Remaining dev fee
Cashflow for distribution
Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 Year 31 Year 32 Year 33 Year 34 Year 35 Year 36 Year 37 Year 38 Year 39 Year 40 Year 41 Year 42 3,516,813 3,604,734 3,694,852 3,787,223 3,881,904 3,978,951 4,078,425 4,180,386 4,284,896 4,392,018 4,501,818 4,614,364 4,729,723 4,847,966 4,969,165 5,093,394 5,220,729 1,086,560 1,113,724 1,141,567 1,170,106 1,199,358 1,229,342 1,260,076 1,291,578 1,323,867 1,356,964 1,390,888 1,425,660 1,461,302 1,497,834 1,535,280 1,573,662 1,613,004 14,461 14,822 15,193 15,573 15,962 16,361 16,770 17,189 17,619 18,060 18,511 18,974 19,448 19,934 20,433 20,943 21,467 4,617,834 4,733,279 4,851,611 4,972,902 5,097,224 5,224,655 5,355,271 5,489,153 5,626,382 5,767,041 5,911,217 6,058,998 6,210,473 6,365,735 6,524,878 6,688,000 6,855,200 (175,841) (180,237) (184,743) (189,361) (194,095) (198,948) (203,921) (209,019) (214,245) (219,601) (225,091) (230,718) (236,486) (242,398) (248,458) (254,670) (261,036) (108,656) (111,372) (114,157) (117,011) (119,936) (122,934) (126,008) (129,158) (132,387) (135,696) (139,089) (142,566) (146,130) (149,783) (153,528) (157,366) (161,300) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(723) (741) (760) (779) (798) (818) (839) (859) (881) (903) (926) (949) (972) (997) (1,022) (1,047) (1,073) (285,220) (292,350) (299,659) (307,150) (314,829) (322,700) (330,767) (339,037) (347,512) (356,200) (365,105) (374,233) (383,589) (393,178) (403,008) (413,083) (423,410) 4,332,614 4,440,929 4,551,953 4,665,751 4,782,395 4,901,955 5,024,504 5,150,116 5,278,869 5,410,841 5,546,112 5,684,765 5,826,884 5,972,556 6,121,870 6,274,917 6,431,790 331,370 342,968 354,972 367,396 380,255 393,564 407,338 421,595 436,351 451,623 467,430 483,790 500,723 518,248 536,387 555,161 574,591 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 20,508 20,918 21,336 21,763 22,198 22,642 23,095 23,557 24,028 24,508 24,999 25,499 26,009 26,529 27,059 27,600 28,153 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 144,505 149,562 154,797 160,215 165,822 171,626 177,633 183,850 190,285 196,945 203,838 210,972 218,356 225,999 233,909 242,096 250,569 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18,539 19,003 19,478 19,965 20,464 20,976 21,500 22,038 22,589 23,153 23,732 24,325 24,933 25,557 26,196 26,851 27,522 2,518,120 2,606,255 2,697,474 2,791,885 2,889,601 2,990,737 3,095,413 3,203,752 3,315,884 3,431,940 3,552,058 3,676,380 3,805,053 3,938,230 4,076,068 4,218,730 4,366,386 3,105,542 3,211,206 3,320,557 3,433,724 3,550,840 3,672,045 3,797,479 3,927,292 4,061,636 4,200,670 4,344,557 4,493,466 4,647,574 4,807,062 4,972,119 5,142,937 5,319,720 1,227,072 1,229,724 1,231,396 1,232,028 1,231,555 1,229,910 1,227,024 1,222,824 1,217,233 1,210,171 1,201,556 1,191,299 1,179,310 1,165,494 1,149,751 1,131,979 1,112,070 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 1,122,072 1,124,724 1,126,396 1,127,028 1,126,555 1,124,910 1,122,024 1,117,824 1,112,233 1,105,171 1,096,556 1,086,299 1,074,310 1,060,494 1,044,751 1,026,979 1,007,070 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 742,888 - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 11.71 11.69 11.65 11.59 11.53 11.44 11.35 11.23 11.10 10.95 10.78 10.59 379,184 381,836 383,508 384,140 383,667 1,124,910 1,122,024 1,117,824 1,112,233 1,105,171 1,096,556 1,086,299 1,074,310 1,060,494 1,044,751 1,026,979 1,007,070 23,632 24,460 25,316 26,202 27,119 28,068 29,050 30,067 31,119 32,209 33,336 34,503 35,710 36,960 38,254 39,593 40,978 35,449 36,689 37,974 39,303 40,678 42,102 43,575 45,101 46,679 48,313 50,004 51,754 53,565 55,440 57,381 59,389 61,468 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
355,551 357,376 358,192 357,938 356,548 1,096,842 1,092,974 1,087,757 1,081,114 1,072,963 1,063,220 1,051,796 1,038,599 1,023,534 1,006,498 987,387 966,091
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Cashflow
Project Name: Santa Monica RFP
Inflation
Rental Income:
Resident Rent 2.50%
Subsidy Rent 2.50%
Laundry Income 2.50%
Gross Income
Vacancy Loss:
Resident Rent 5.00%
Subsidy Rent 10.00%
Laundry Income 5.00%
Total Vacancy Loss
Gross Effective Income
Operating Expenses:
Management Fee 3.50%
Replacement Reserve 0.00%
Real Estate Taxes 2.00%
Issuer Fee 0.00%
Additional Fees 3.50%
LACDA Monitoring Fee 0.00%
Services Fee 2.50%
Other Operating Expenses 3.50%
Total Expenses
Cashflow before Debt Service
Ratio/Rate
HCD Payment 0.42%
Net Income Available for Debt Service
Permanent Loan 1.15
Combined DSCR
Cashflow after debt service
Fees
LP Management Fe 3.50%
GP Management Fee 3.50%
Def. Dev.Fee 300,000
Remaining dev fee
Cashflow for distribution
Year 43 Year 44 Year 45 Year 46 Year 47 Year 48 Year 49 Year 50 Year 51 Year 52 Year 53 Year 54 Year 55 5,351,247 5,485,029 5,622,154 5,762,708 5,906,776 6,054,445 6,205,806 6,360,951 6,519,975 6,682,975 6,850,049 7,021,300 7,196,833 1,653,329 1,694,662 1,737,029 1,780,454 1,824,966 1,870,590 1,917,355 1,965,288 2,014,421 2,064,781 2,116,401 2,169,311 2,223,544 22,004 22,554 23,118 23,696 24,288 24,895 25,518 26,156 26,809 27,480 28,167 28,871 29,593 7,026,580 7,202,244 7,382,301 7,566,858 7,756,030 7,949,930 8,148,679 8,352,396 8,561,205 8,775,236 8,994,616 9,219,482 9,449,969 (267,562) (274,251) (281,108) (288,135) (295,339) (302,722) (310,290) (318,048) (325,999) (334,149) (342,502) (351,065) (359,842) (165,333) (169,466) (173,703) (178,045) (182,497) (187,059) (191,735) (196,529) (201,442) (206,478) (211,640) (216,931) (222,354) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(1,100) (1,128) (1,156) (1,185) (1,214) (1,245) (1,276) (1,308) (1,340) (1,374) (1,408) (1,444) (1,480) (433,995) (444,845) (455,966) (467,366) (479,050) (491,026) (503,302) (515,884) (528,781) (542,001) (555,551) (569,440) (583,676) 6,592,585 6,757,399 6,926,334 7,099,492 7,276,980 7,458,904 7,645,377 7,836,511 8,032,424 8,233,235 8,439,066 8,650,042 8,866,293 594,702 615,516 637,060 659,357 682,434 706,319 731,040 756,627 783,109 810,518 838,886 868,247 898,635 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 28,716 29,290 29,876 30,473 31,083 31,704 32,338 32,985 33,645 34,318 35,004 35,704 36,418 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 259,339 268,416 277,810 287,534 297,597 308,013 318,794 329,951 341,500 353,452 365,823 378,627 391,879 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
28,210 28,915 29,638 30,379 31,139 31,917 32,715 33,533 34,371 35,230 36,111 37,014 37,939 4,519,209 4,677,382 4,841,090 5,010,528 5,185,897 5,367,403 5,555,262 5,749,696 5,950,936 6,159,218 6,374,791 6,597,909 6,828,835 5,502,675 5,692,019 5,887,973 6,090,771 6,300,649 6,517,857 6,742,649 6,975,292 7,216,060 7,465,236 7,723,115 7,990,000 8,266,207 1,089,909 1,065,380 1,038,361 1,008,722 976,331 941,048 902,727 861,219 816,364 767,998 715,951 660,042 600,086 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 984,909 960,380 933,361 903,722 871,331 836,048 797,727 756,219 711,364 662,998 610,951 555,042 495,086 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10.38 10.15 9.89 9.61 9.30 8.96 8.60 8.20 7.77 7.31 6.82 6.29 5.72 984,909 960,380 933,361 903,722 871,331 836,048 797,727 756,219 711,364 662,998 610,951 555,042 495,086 42,413 43,897 45,433 47,024 48,669 50,373 52,136 53,961 55,849 57,804 59,827 61,921 64,088 63,619 65,846 68,150 70,535 73,004 75,559 78,204 80,941 83,774 86,706 89,741 92,882 96,132 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
942,496 916,483 887,927 856,698 822,661 785,675 745,592 702,258 655,515 605,194 551,123 493,121 430,998
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix K
HCHC Portfolio of Developments
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Project Name & Address Date Completed
Project type
(New Construction or
rehab)
Commercial
Component
(if any)
Target Population
Number of
Restricted Units
Number of Total
Units
Similarity to Santa
Monica RFP Sites
Alexandria House Apartments
510 S. Alexandria Street
Los Angeles, CA 90020
7/8/2009 Rehab N/A Family 15 16 --
Allesandro Street Apartments
1934 Allesandro Street
Los Angeles, CA 90039
11/14/2005 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
17 18 --
Argyle Court Apartments
1938 N. Argyle Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90068
2/16/1998 Rehab N/A Family, Special
Needs
22 23 --
Barnsdall Court Apartments
1632 Noramandie Avenue Los
Angeles, CA 90027
6/28/2000 NC N/A Family 37 38 --
Carlton Court Apartments
5443 Carlton Way
Los Angeles, CA 90027
10/5/1994 NC N/A Family 23 24 --
Casa Verde Apartments
1552 Schrader Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90028
12/1/2000 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
29 30 --
Coronel Apartments
1601 N. Hobart Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
4/19/2019 NC/Rehab N/A Family 53 54 --
Dunning Apartments
5552 Carlton Way
Los Angeles, CA 90028
11/6/1992 Rehab N/A Family, Special
Needs
25 26 --
Florence Mills Apartments
1044 E. Jefferson Blvd, Los
Angeles, CA 90011
3/1/2021 NC
Yes - Young
Musicians
Foundation
Homeless
Veterans and lowincome families73 74
Located adjacent
to Paul Williams
Apartments
allowing for shared
resources
Gateway Apartments
13368 Beach Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90292
3/2/2016 NC N/A Homeless, Special
Needs
20 21
Located in west
Los Angeles
Gramercy Place Apartments
2375 W. Washington Blvd,
Los Angeles, CA 90018
12/3/2021 NC Yes - Tenant space
vacant Homeless 62 64
Ground lease
property
Harold Way Apartments
5521 Harold Way
Los Angeles, CA 90026
8/19/2003 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
50 51 --
HCHC Recap I:
5425 Carlton Way, Los Angeles,
CA 90027
1924 N. Argyle Age. Los
Angeles, CA 90068
6501 Yucca St. Los Angeles, CA
90028
9/8/2017 Rehab N/A Family, Seniors 65 68 --
Hollywood Bungalows
1516-1544 Serrano Avenue, 1721
N. Kingsley
Los Angeles, CA 90027
1/22/2010 Rehab N/A Family 41 42 --
Hollywood Metro Apartments
1516 N Western Avnue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
8/8/2005 NC
Yes - Bank and
other retail Family 55 56 --
Innes Heights Apartments
1245 Innes Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90026
8/14/2003 NC N/A Special Needs 18 19 --
Complete Portfolio of Properties in Operation, under Construction, and in PreDevelopment Key: Rows highlighted in yellow are analogous to this City of Santa Monica proposal Properties in Operation
Portfolio of Developments
Los Angeles, CA 90018
Harold Way Apartments
5521 Harold Way
Los Angeles, CA 90026
8/19/2003 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
50 51 --
HCHC Recap I:
5425 Carlton Way, Los Angeles,
CA 90027
1924 N. Argyle Age. Los
Angeles, CA 90068
6501 Yucca St. Los Angeles, CA
90028
9/8/2017 Rehab N/A Family, Seniors 65 68 --
Hollywood Bungalows
1516-1544 Serrano Avenue, 1721
N. Kingsley
Los Angeles, CA 90027
1/22/2010 Rehab N/A Family 41 42 --
Hollywood Metro Apartments
1516 N Western Avnue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
8/8/2005 NC
Yes - Bank and
other retail Family 55 56 --
Innes Heights Apartments
1245 Innes Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90026
8/14/2003 NC N/A Special Needs 18 19 --
Los Angeles County Development Authority NOFA 26 - B.2 Developer Experience Project Name & Address Date Completed
Project type
(New Construction or
rehab)
Commercial
Component
(if any)
Target Population
Number of
Restricted Units
Number of Total
Units
Similarity to Santa
Monica RFP Sites
Kenmore Apartments
1726 N. Kenmore Avenue Los
Angeles, CA 90027
12/15/2000 Rehab N/A Family, Special
Needs
20 21 --
La Brea / Franklin Apartments
1801 La Brea Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90046
5/30/1993 NC N/A Family 39 40 --
La Mirada Terrace Apartments
5657 La Mirada Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90038
12/1/2000 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
29 30 --
Mariposa Apartments
1050 Mariposa Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90029
6/1/2009 NC Yes - laundromat Family 57 58 --
Palo Verde Apartments
4704 Peck Road
El Monte, CA 91732
11/21/2018 NC N/A
Homeless
Veterans and LowIncome Famiies48 49
Partial PSH and
partial general
affordable
Palomar Apartments
5473 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90029
12/14/2005 Rehab N/A Senior 26 27 --
Paul Williams Apartments
E. 1010 Jefferson Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90011
3/28/2019 NC/Rehab N/A Family 40 41
Located adjacent
to Florence Mills
Apartments
allowing for shared
resources
St. Andrews Place
1514-44 N. St. Andrews Pl.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
11/21/1995 Rehab N/A Homeless 15 16 --
Stanford Avenue Apartments
14733-14803 S. Stanford
Avenue, Compton, CA 90220
12/1/2020 NC N/A Homeless 83 85
New construction
with concentrated
PSH population
Step Up on Colorado
520 Colorado Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
10/21/2015 NC N/A Homeless, Special
Needs
32 34
Located in Santa
Monica on 6,500
SF site
Step Up on Vine
1057 N. Vine Street
Los Angeles, CA 90028
1/1/2013 Rehab
Yes - Café and
community serving
retail space for
work training
Homeless, Special
Needs
32 34 --
Views at 270
1672 N Western Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
5/27/2004 NC Yes - Walgreens Family 59 60 --
Waterloo Heights
1011 Waterloo Street
Los Angeles, CA 90026
8/22/2002 NC N/A Homeless 17 18 -
Walnut Park Apartments
7616 Pacific Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90255
Under
Construction
NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
62 64
Partial PSH and
partial general
affordable
Palm Vista
20116 Sherman Way
Winnetka, CA 91306
Under
Construction
NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
89 91
Partial PSH and
partial general
affordable
Luna Vista
8767 Parthenia Place
North Hills, CA 91343
Under
Construction NC
N/A Family, Special
Needs 71 73
Partial PSH and
partial general
affordable
Peak Plaza Apartments
Properties in PreDevelopment
Properties Under Construction
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Project Name & Address Date Completed
Project type
(New Construction or
rehab)
Commercial
Component
(if any)
Target Population
Number of
Restricted Units
Number of Total
Units
Similarity to Santa
Monica RFP Sites
Venice Dell Community
2102-2120 South Pacific Ave 116-
302 East North Venice Blvd
2106-2116 South Canal St 319
East South Venice Blvd
In
Predevelopment
NC TBD Family, Special
Needs, Artists
136 140
Located in west
Los Angeles. Large
project over 140
units. Ground
lease.
Step Up on Colorado
520 Colorado Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
10/21/2015 NC N/A Homeless, Special
Needs
32 34
Located in Santa
Monica on 6,500
SF site
Step Up on Vine
1057 N. Vine Street
Los Angeles, CA 90028
1/1/2013 Rehab
Yes - Café and
community serving
retail space for
work training
Homeless, Special
Needs
32 34 --
Views at 270
1672 N Western Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
5/27/2004 NC Yes - Walgreens Family 59 60 --
Waterloo Heights
1011 Waterloo Street
Los Angeles, CA 90026
8/22/2002 NC N/A Homeless 17 18 -
Walnut Park Apartments
7616 Pacific Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90255
Under
Construction
NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
62 64
Partial PSH and
partial general
affordable
Palm Vista
20116 Sherman Way
Winnetka, CA 91306
Under
Construction
NC N/A Family, Special
Needs
89 91
Partial PSH and
partial general
affordable
Luna Vista
8767 Parthenia Place
North Hills, CA 91343
Under
Construction NC
N/A Family, Special
Needs 71 73
Partial PSH and
partial general
affordable
Peak Plaza Apartments
306 E Washington Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90015
In
Predevelopment
NC Yes Family 102 104
Received AHSC
Funding Award
Properties in PreDevelopment
Properties Under Construction
Los Angeles County Development Authority NOFA 26 - B.2 Developer Experience Portfolio of Developments, Continued
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix L
HCHC Portfolio of Service
Partnerships& Financing
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Portfolio of Service Partnerships and Financing
Property Name Location Units (Special
Needs/Total) Service Partner DateCompleted
Dates of
Service
Agreement
Short Description of
Services
Financing Source for
Service
Alexandria
House
Apartments
City of Los
Angeles 16 (15) Alexandria House 2009
Service start
date
08/01/2009
1.0 FTE RSC Joint Partnership with
Alexandria House
Allesandro Street
Apartments
City of Los
Angeles 18 (17) HCHC Resident ServicesTeam 2005 7/1/23‐6/30/24 All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
7/1/23‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
7/1/23‐
6/30/25,
agreement is
pending.
Project‐Based Rental
Assistance (PBRA) for 22
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles‐
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with
AIDS/HIV (HOPWA)
Project‐Based Rental
Assistance (PBRA)
30 (12) HCHC Resident Services
Team 7/1/23‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
30 (11) HCHC Resident Services
Team 9/1/22‐8/31/23
Sponsor‐based rental
assistance (SRA) for 112
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) Continuum of
Care Program,
$1,851,854/year
26 (3) 7/1/23‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
26 (3) 9/1/22‐8/31/23
Sponsor‐based rental
assistance (SRA) for 112
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) Continuum of
Care Program,
$1,851,854/year
Project Cash Flow
($69,000/year)
Measure H
($32,400/year)
In ‐Kind service value
($45,350/year)
Property‐Specific Partnerships for PSH Units
Florence Mills
Apartments
Service start
date
03/24/2021
City of Los
Angeles 74 (19) Housing Works 2021 1.0 FTE CM & 1.0 FTE RSC 2000
HCHC Resident Services
Team 23 (22) City of LosAngeles
Argyle Court
Apartments 1998
Casa Verde
Apartments
City of Los
Angeles
Dunning
Apartments
City of Los
Angeles
HCHC Resident Services
Team 1992
Gramercy Place
Apartments
City of Los
Angeles 64 (31) Housing Works 2021
Service start
date
07/01/2019
1.55FTE CM & 1.00 FTE
RSC
Project Cash flow
($66,250/year)
42 (15) 7/1/23‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
42 (15) 9/1/22‐8/31/23
Sponsor‐based rental
assistance (SRA) for 112
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) Continuum of
Care Program,
$1,851,854/year
19 (18) 7/1/23‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
19 (18) 9/1/22‐8/31/23
Sponsor‐based rental
assistance (SRA) for 112
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) Continuum of
Care Program,
$1,851,854/year
21 (7) HCHC Resident Services
Team 7/1/23‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
21 (7) HCHC Resident Services
Team 9/1/22‐8/31/23
Sponsor‐based rental
assistance (SRA) for 112
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) Continuum of
Care Program,
$1,851,854/year
30 (9) 7/1/23‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing &
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
30 (9) 9/1/22‐8/31/23
Sponsor‐based rental
assistance (SRA) for 112
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) Continuum of
Care Program,
$1,851,854/year
2000
Hollywood
Bungalow Courts
Innes Heights
Apartments 2003 City of LosAngeles
City of Los
Angeles
HCHC Resident Services
Team 2010
HCHC Resident Services
Team
2000
HCHC Resident Services
Team
La Mirada
Terrace
Apartments
Kenmore
Apartments
City of Los
Angeles
City of Los
Angeles
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 23 (3) 7/1/23
‐6/30/24
All funding used for
salaries: 30% Director of
Resident Services, 50%
Program Manager, 80%
RSC, 100% Senior RSC,
100% Senior RSC
Alliance for Housing&
Healing relating to the
Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program
Resident Services
Coordination, $278,120/
year
23 (3) 9/1/22‐8/31/23
Sponsor‐based rental
assistance (SRA) for 112
HOPWA residents
Housing Authority of the
City of Los Angeles
(HACLA) Continuum of
Care Program,
$1,851,854/year
Walnut Park
Apartments
Huntington Park
Los Angeles
County
64 (31) HousingWorks Under
construction
MOU signed.
Services to
begin in Spring
2024 and
continue
through 2039.
2.05 FTE Case Manager
0.75 FTE RSC
‐ LA County DHS
MeasureH
‐ Project cash flow
($82,500/year)
Palm Vista
Apartments
City of Los
Angeles 91 (44) Housing Works Underconstruction
Service start
date
09/01/2023
2.20 FTE CMs& 1.125
RSC
‐ LA County DHS
MeasureH
‐ Project cash flow
($96,000/year)
Project Cash Flow
($75,000/year)
MeasureH
commitments to SPA7
under Housing Works
Master Contract with
DHS
Grant Name and
Partnerships Year Awarded Amount Use of Funds
QueensCare 2022 $15,000 HCHC Resident Services
salaries
Kaiser
Permanente 2022 $50,000 HCHC Resident Servicessalaries
The Green
Foundation 2022 $25,000 HCHC Resident Servicessalaries
Marisla
Foundation 2022 $35,000 HCHC Resident Servicessalaries and benefits S. Mark Taper
Foundation 2022 $50,000 HCHC Resident Servicessalaries
QueensCare 2023 $15,000 HCHC Resident Services
salaries
Marisla
Foundation 2023 $35,000 HCHC Resident Servicessalaries and benefits Geffen
Foundation 2021 $10,000 Resident Services
Young Musicians
Foundation Ongoing partnership
Provides free music
instruction to Florence
Mills and Paul Williams
residents over the age of 4
YWCA Ongoing partnership
Provides linkage for
residents experiencing
domestic violence
Housing Works Ongoing partnership
Receives office space at
no cost at Wilcox
Apartments
Luna Vista
Apartments
Service start
date
anticipated in
2024
City of Los
Angeles 73 (36) Housing Works Underconstruction
City of Los
Angeles
Wilcox
Apartments
2.25 FTE CMs& 0.75 FTE
RSC
2017 HCHC Resident Services
Team
Portfolio of Service Partnerships and Financing, Continued This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix M
HCHC Portfolio of All Project Financ-
ing Sources Including 4% & 9%
Developments
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) List of All Project Financing Sources B.2 Developer Experience Project Name & Address
Tax
Credit
Type
Date Completed
Project type
(New
Construction or
rehab)
Commercial
Component
(if any)
Target
Population
Number of
Restricted/Tax
Credit Units
Number of Total
Units
Principal Funding Sources (LIHTC,
MHP, etc.)
Alexandria House Apartments
510 S. Alexandria Street
Los Angeles, CA 90020
4% 7/8/2009 Rehab N/A Family 15 16 LIHTC, Pacific Capital Bank-AHP,
HACOLA, CRA, MHP, COI & HCID
Allesandro Street Apartments
1934 Allesandro Street
Los Angeles, CA 90039
N/A 11/14/2005 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs 17 18 Citi Bank, HUD, HACOLA & HCID
Argyle Court Apartments
1938 N. Argyle Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90068
N/A 2/16/1998 Rehab N/A Family, Special
Needs 22 23 CHASE & HCID
Barnsdall Court Apartments
1632 Noramandie Avenue Los
Angeles, CA 90027
4% 6/28/2000 NC N/A Family 37 38 LIHTC, Red Mortgage Capital, Inc. US Bank & HCID
Carlton Court Apartments
5443 Carlton Way
Los Angeles, CA 90027
4% 10/5/1994 NC N/A Family 23 24 LIHTC, Citi Bank, CRA & HCHC Casa Verde Apartments
1552 Schrader Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90028
4% 12/1/2000 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs 29 30 LIHTC, Citi Bank & CRA
Coronel Apartments
1601 N. Hobart Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
9% 4/19/2019 NC/Rehab N/A Family 53 54 LIHTC, Bank of America, HCID, CRA, AHP, Kilroy Realty Corp.
Dunning Apartments
5552 Carlton Way
Los Angeles, CA 90028
9% 11/6/1992 Rehab N/A Family, Special
Needs 25 26 LIHTC, Mission Valley Bank (MVB) & CRA
Florence Mills Apartments
1044 E. Jefferson Blvd, Los
Angeles, CA 90011
9% 3/1/2021 NC
Yes - Young
Musicians
Foundation
Homeless
Veterans and lowincome families
73 74 LIHTC, Union Bank, LACDA, AHP,
HCIDLA, HomeDepot
Gateway Apartments
13368 Beach Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90292
9% 3/2/2016 NC N/A Homeless,
Special Needs 20 21 LIHTC, HCID, LACDC
Gramercy Place Apartments
2375 W. Washington Blvd,
Los Angeles, CA 90018
4% 12/3/2021 NC Yes - Tenant space
vacant Homeless 62 64 LIHTC, Citibank, LACDA - CGF, CRA, HHH, and MHHP Harold Way Apartments
5521 Harold Way
Los Angeles, CA 90026
9% 8/19/2003 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs 50 51 LIHTC, CHASE, HCID & HCHC
HCHC Recap I:
5425 Carlton Way, Los
Angeles, CA 90027; 1924 N.
Argyle Age. Los Angeles, CA
4% 9/8/2017 Rehab N/A Family, Seniors 65 68 LIHTC, HCID, tax exempt bonds Hollywood Bungalows
1516-1544 Serrano Avenue,
1721 N. Kingsley
Los Angeles, CA 90027
4% 1/22/2010 Rehab N/A Family 41 42 LIHTC, Citi Bank, CRA & HCID Hollywood Metro Apartments
1516 N Western Avnue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
4% 8/8/2005 NC Yes - Bank and
other retail Family 55 56 LIHTC, Bank of New York Trust, MHP &CRA Innes Heights Apartments
1245 Innes Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90026
9% 8/14/2003 NC N/A Special Needs 18 19 LIHTC, Citi Bank, HACOLA, HCID & AHP
Kenmore Apartments
1726 N. Kenmore Avenue Los
Angeles, CA 90027
9% 12/15/2000 Rehab N/A Family, Special
Needs 20 21 LIHTC, HCID
La Brea / Franklin Apartments
1801 La Brea Avenue
Los AngelesCA 90046
9% 5/30/1993 NC N/A Family 39 40 LIHTC, Citi Bank & CRA 306 E Washington
Hollywood Bungalows
1516-1544 Serrano Avenue,
1721 N. Kingsley
Los Angeles, CA 90027
4% 1/22/2010 Rehab N/A Family 41 42 LIHTC, Citi Bank, CRA & HCID Hollywood Metro Apartments
1516 N Western Avnue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
4% 8/8/2005 NC Yes - Bank and
other retail Family 55 56 LIHTC, Bank of New York Trust, MHP &CRA Innes Heights Apartments
1245 Innes Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90026
9% 8/14/2003 NC N/A Special Needs 18 19 LIHTC, Citi Bank, HACOLA, HCID & AHP
Kenmore Apartments
1726 N. Kenmore Avenue Los
Angeles, CA 90027
9% 12/15/2000 Rehab N/A Family, Special
Needs 20 21 LIHTC, HCID
La Brea / Franklin Apartments
1801 La Brea Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90046
9% 5/30/1993 NC N/A Family 39 40 LIHTC, Citi Bank & CRA La Mirada Terrace Apartments
5657 La Mirada Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90038
9% 12/1/2000 NC N/A Family, Special
Needs 29 30 LIHTC, Citi Bank & HCID
Peak Plaza Apartments
306 E Washington Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90015
4% In
Predevelopment NC N/A Family TBD 104
AHSC & LAHD committed
Project intends to pursue 4% LIHTC
and state tax credits.
Walnut Park Apartments
7616 Pacific Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90255
N/A Under
Construction NC N/A Family, Special Needs 62 64 HCD-IIG, HCD-CHAP, HCD-HHC, AHP, LACDA, Banner Bank
Venice Dell Community
2102-2120 South Pacific Ave
116-302 East North Venice Blvd
2106-2116 South Canal St 319
4% In
Predevelopment NC TBD Family, Special Needs, Artists 136 140 LAHD-AHTF & Citi committed
Project intends to pursue 4% LIHTC
and state tax credits, HCD-MHP, and
HCD-IIG
Palm Vista
20116 Sherman Way
Winnetka, CA 91306
4%
Under
Construction NC N/A Family, Special Needs 89 91 LIHTC, HCD-IIG, HCD-MHP, LACDA, CRA, AHP Luna Vista
8767 Parthenia Place
North Hills, CA 91343
4% Under
Construction NC
N/A Family, Special
Needs 71 73 LIHTC, LAHD-AHMP, HCD-MHP,
HCD-IIG, Banner Bank
Mariposa Apartments
1050 Mariposa Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90029
4% 6/1/2009 NC Yes - laundromat Family 57 58 LIHTC, US Bank, HCID HACOLA Palo Verde Apartments
4704 Peck Road
El Monte, CA 91732
9% 11/21/2018 NC N/A
Homeless
Veterans and
Low-Income
Famiies
48 49 LIHTC, Citibank, HCD VHHP, LACDA,
HACOLA, AHP, City of El Monte
Palomar Apartments
5473 Santa Monica Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90029
9% 12/14/2005 Rehab N/A Senior 26 27 LIHTC, Berkadia, CCRC & CRA Paul Williams Apartments
E. 1010 Jefferson Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90011
9% 3/28/2019 NC/Rehab N/A Family 40 41 LIHTC, Bank of America, HCID CDBG & AHTF, AHP
St. Andrews Place
1514-44 N. St. Andrews Pl.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
9% 11/21/1995 Rehab N/A Homeless 15 16 LIHTC, Citibank, CRA & HCID Stanford Avenue Apartments
14733-14803 S. Stanford
Avenue, Compton, CA 90220
9% 12/1/2020 NC N/A Homeless 83 85 LIHTC, Wells Fargo Bank, LACDA, AHP
Step Up on Colorado
520 Colorado Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
9% 10/21/2015 NC N/A Homeless,
Special Needs 32 34 LIHTC, City of Santa Monica, LACDC, AHP
Step Up on Vine
1057 N. Vine Street
Los Angeles, CA 90028
9% 1/1/2013 Rehab
Yes - Café and
community serving
retail space for
work training
Homeless,
Special Needs 32 34
LIHTC, MHSA, CRA/LA, HCID, AHP,
LACDC, Enterprise Green
Communities
Views at 270
1672 N Western Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90027
4% 5/27/2004 NC Yes - Walgreens Family 59 60 LIHTC, Berkadia & CRA Waterloo Heights
1011 Waterloo Street
Los Angeles, CA 90026
N/A 8/22/2002 NC N/A Homeless 17 18 HUD, HACOLA
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix N
HCHC Portfolio of Federal Subsidies
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) # Index Building Name Address
Total Units
(w/manager)
PBV/NonVash
PBV/VASH HOME Fund Others
1 Allesandro Apts. 1934 Allesandro Street Los Angeles, CA 90039 18 17-HUD PRAC 811 2 Argyle Court Apartments 1938 N. Argyle Avenue Hollywood, CA 90068 23 22 5 3 Casa Verde Apartments 1552 Schrader Avenue Hollywood, CA 90028 30 2 4 Florence Mills 1044 E. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90011 74 6 13 37 5 Gramercy Place 1856 S. Wilton Place, Los Angeles, CA 90019 64 32 6 Harold Way Apartments 5521 Harold Way Hollywood, CA 90026 51 25 7 HCHC Recap I Werner Illing House 1924 N. Argyle Avenue Hollywood, CA 90068 21 21 7 8 Mariposa Place 5026 Santa Monica Blvd. Hollywood, CA 58 28 9 Mirada Terrace Apts. 5657 La Mirada Avenue Hollywood, CA 90038 30 14 10 Palo Verde 4704 Peck Road, El Monte, CA 91732 49 9 16 11 Palomar Apartments 5473 Santa Monica Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90029 27 4 12 Paul Williams 1010 Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90011 41 20 13 Step Up on Colorado 520 Colorado Ave., Santa Monica, CA 9040 34 32 32-DHS 14 Step Up on Vine 1057 N. Vine Ave,, Los Angeles, CA 90038 34 32 32-DMH 15 Waterloo Heights 1011 Waterloo Street Silverlake, CA 90026 18 7 17-HUD PRAC 811 572 154 29 149 4
Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
Affordable Housing Project
Updated: 08/24/2023
Portfolio of Federal Subsidies
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix O
Portfolio of Hollywood Community
Housing Loans
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) LOAN SCHEDULE DATE: August 29, 2023
Name of the Lender Purpose/Project
Date of
Original
Loan
Original
Loan
Amount
Available
Balance
Interest Rate
Maturity
Date
Security / Recourse
CLOSED LOANS
Corporation for Supportive
Housing (CSH)
Predevelopment/Venice Dell 6/15/2018 $ 3,273,000 $ 834,975 6.00% 12/30/2023.
Pursuing a
subsequent 12-
mo extension to
12/30/24.
HCHC & VCH as co-guarantors
plus VCH's property at 511
Brooks serves as collateral.
Nonprofit Finance Fund
(NFF) - Enterprise Level
Capital
Predevelopment for multiple properties 12/22/2020 $ 1,500,000 $ - 5.50% 36 months from origination with
two one year
extensions.
Highly likely both
one-year
extensions will
be granted.
Unsecured / Recourse to
HCHC
Century Housing Acquisition/306 E Washington Blvd
(Peak Plaza Apts)
8/26/2022 $ 6,375,000 $ - 1-month SOFR +
4.50%
Secured - Property
LISC (MATCH Funds) Predevelopment/306 E Washington
Blvd (Peak Plaza Apts)
12/20/2022 $ 1,500,000 $ 866,909 Blended rate
with two
separate Notes.
5.75% and 2.9%
24 month month
term + a few
days (1/1/25) with
a 12 month
Unsecured / Recourse to
HCHC
PENDING LOANS
None
OTHER OBLIGATIONS
Union Bank - Line of Credit Predevelopment Expenses/Operations 02/18/2017 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 4.00% 06/01/2024 Unsecured / Recourse to HCHC
Wells Fargo Bank - Patient
Capital Loan Product
Predevelopment Expenses/Operations 12/21/2021 $ 500,000 $0.00 2.00% 12/21/2027 Unsecured / Recourse to HCHC
HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Appendix P
Architectural Plans
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
ELEV ELEV
ELECTRICAL ROOM
UP
UP
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
LOBBY
MECHANICAL
ROOM
STORAGE
STORAGE
STORAGE
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
ADAADA
STANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARD
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT UP
Two-Way Vehicle
Ramp Up
Unexcavated Area
Euclid Street
Basement Garage Plan
Base Case: Level B1
Alternate: Level B2
1/16” = 1’-0”
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) LOBBY
STORAGE
STORAGE
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
ADAADA
STANDARDSTANDARD
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT UP
UP
MECHANICAL
ROOM
DN
ELECTRICAL ROOM
STORAGE
DN
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
ELEV ELEV
DN
UP
Two-Way Vehicle
Ramp Up
Two-Way Vehicle
Ramp Down
Unexcavated Area
Euclid Street
Optional Additional Garage Plan
Base Case: N/A
Alternate: Level B1
1/16” = 1’-0” N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
ELEV ELEV
UP
TRANSFORMER
COMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
STANDARD
ADAADA
STANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARD
DN
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
SERVICE PROVIDER
COMMUNITY
ROOM
BIKE ROOM
CONFERENCE
CASE
MNGR.
OFFICE
CASE MNGR. OFFICE MANAGEMENT
MECHANICAL
ROOM
LOBBY TRASH
ROOM
UP
DN
MECHANICAL
DN
Euclid Street
Alley
Community Room with
Public Street Access
Service Provider Oces
Bike Storage and
E-Bike Library
Public Nose-In Parking
Along Euclid Street
Two-Way Alley
Vehicle Access
Two-Way Ramp to
Subgrade Parking
Euclid Street
Ground Floor Plan
1/16” = 1’-0” N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
ELEV ELEV
LAUNDRY CONFERENCE
UP DN
DN
UP
Euclid Street
Alley
Landscaped Common
Space at Podium Level
Additional Community
Amenities at Podium Level
Wilshire Theatre Fly Tower
Exterior Circulation
Above
Euclid Street
Level 2 Plan
1/16” = 1’-0” N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) UP
DN
UP
ELEV ELEV
DN
Euclid Street
Alley
Open To Landscape
Below
Exterior Circulation Wilshire Theatre Fly Tower
Euclid Street
Levels 3-5 Plan
1/16” = 1’-0”
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) DN
DN
ELEV ELEV
UP
Euclid Street
Alley
Community Roof Deck Wilshire Theatre Fly Tower
Euclid Street
Level 6 Plan
1/16” = 1’-0”
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) LOBBY
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
ADAADA
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
UP
STANDARD
STORAGE
ELECTRICAL ROOM STANDARD
UP
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT STANDARD UP
ELEV ELEV
MECHANICAL
ROOM
Two-Way Vehicle
Ramp Up
Unexcavated Area
Fourteenth Street
Garage Plan
Base Case: Level B1
Alternate: Level B2
1/16” = 1’-0”
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
STANDARD
STANDARD
DN
DN
DN
STANDARD
STANDARD
UP
UP
STORAGE
UP
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT ADAADA
STANDARDSTANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
STANDARD
ELEV ELEV
MECHANICAL
ROOM
LOBBY
Two-Way Vehicle
Ramp Up
Two-Way Vehicle
Ramp Down
Unexcavated Area
1/16” = 1’-0”
Fourteenth Street
Optional Additional Garage Plan
Base Case: N/A
Alternate: Level B1
N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
RESIDENT SERVICES
COORDINATOR
COMMUNITY ROOM
BIKE ROOM UP
DN
UP
TRANSFORMER
COMPACT
ELEV ELEV
COMPACT
DN
MANAGEMENT
LOBBY
MECHANICAL
ROOM
TRASH
ROOM
STANDARD
ADAADA
STANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDCOMPACTCOMPACT
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
DN
14th Street
Alley
Bike Storage and
E-Bike Library
Community Room and
Public Street Access
Two-Way Alley
Vehicle Access
Two-Way Ramp to
Subgrade Parking
1/16” = 1’-0”
Fourteenth Street
Ground Level Plan
N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1514 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) DN
ELEV ELEV UP
LAUNDRY
UP
DN
READING
ROOM
Landscaped Common
Space at Podium Level
Additional Community
Amenities at Podium Level
14th Street
Alley
Exterior Circulation Above
1/16” = 1’-0”
Fourteenth Street
Level 2 Plan
N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) UP
UP
DN
DN
ELEV ELEV
14th Street
Alley
Open To Landscape
Below
Exterior Circulation
1/16” = 1’-0”
Fourteenth Street
Levels 3-5 Plan
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) UP
DN
ELEV ELEV
DN
14th Street
Alley
Community Roof Deck
1/16” = 1’-0”
Fourteenth Street
Levels 3-5 Plan
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
STANDARD
STANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARDSTANDARD ADA
COMPACT
UP
UP
ELEV
DN
ELECTRICAL MECH
UP
Naturally-Ventilated Semi-Subterranean
Parking Garage
Bike Parking
Two-Way Ramp up to Alley
1/16” = 1’-0”
Sixteenth Street
Garage Plan
N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) TRASH
ROOM
READING
ROOM
UP UP
MANAGEMENT
COMMUNITY
ROOM
DN
LAUNDRY
DN
TRANSFORMER
ELEV
UP
UP
STRG
16th Street
Alley
Community Room with
Public Street Access
Raised Podium
Level Above Parking
Two-Way Ramp to
Semi-Subterranean Parking
Long-Term Bike Storage in
Garage
1/16” = 1’-0”
Sixteenth Street
Ground Level Plan
N
^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) STRG
UP
DN
ELEV
DN
UP
16th Street
Alley
Exterior Circulation
Manager’s Unit
1/16” = 1’-0”
Sixteenth Street
Levels 2-4 Plan
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) ELEV
UP
DN
STRG
UP
DN
16th Street
Alley
Roof Garden
Rooftop Mechanical
Space
1/16” = 1’-0”
Sixteenth Street
Roof Plan
N^
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.k
Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: K. Original HCHC Proposal (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Comments submitted to HCHC during public comment period from May 8 through May 31, 2024 The parcel where this affordable housing project will be has 2 giant, beautiful and absolutely magnificent Ficus trees on it at the east end of the lot. Now I know that the construction of housing in California is absolutely paramount, and affordable housing even more so, however, and I'm pleading here - is there any way to save these trees, even in dramatically pruned down versions? Yes, the trunks and root systems are large, and I'm sure that would be a challenge. So, if they cannot be saved at this location, perhaps the City could have the canopy pruned down and moved to another location, such as Palisades Park, or to another location where everyone could enjoy their majesty. My neighbors and I feel quite strongly that the permanent loss of these incredible trees would be a terrible loss, to the City, to the people of Santa Monica, and to the ecosystem that these trees help protect. As all of us know, the loss of trees in this world is on a scale that may lead to catastrophe, and is already having an effect on the warming of our planet.
Thank you.
[name removed]
Santa Monica, CA
First, this is NOT "surplus land." The demands for this space have not been met. In fact it is in high demand.
My main concern is the loss of parking spaces. 16th Street serves the UCLA Santa Monica Hospital, restaurants and businesses on Wilshire, Lincoln Middle School and residents. There is already a shortage of parking spaces. Due to the shortage, residents often resort to paying to park in Lot #8, the one you are taking away.
Do you plan to replace the loss of current spaces and charging station? If so can current resident use the spaces? The increase in cars on 16th Street and 16th Court. There needs to be a traffic light installed at the intersection with Wilshire as it is.
Where are La Condesa and Cafe Zelle going to park their large garbage bins? Currently their large garbage bins are in the lot. Where are the large garbage, recycling, and compost bins for proposed building going to be housed? The choice to declare the space as surplus and build a four story building feels like a totally disregard for the residents of 16th Street. It will completely and negatively change our lives. We had no say in the matter. People are less likely to buck your plans if you include them in the decision making.
Do the developers pay the city for land?
Who pays for the building?
Who owns the building?
Are my taxes involved?
Questions and concerns:
1. We believe that these projects have a significant effect on the environment. Were the environmental impact tests conducted? These are 3 major constructions of tall and large buildings within close proximity of each other, including 1217 Euclid and 1211-1217 14th street located within just one block of each other.
2. What permits construction beyond the height directed by the housing element?
3. For 1217 Euclid construction, what experience does developer have with large group of homeless people? If homeless people do drugs at the premises, what is the procedure for eviction?
4. For 1217 Euclid construction, the alley where the developer supposedly will run traffic to the parking is extremely narrow. There are multiple buildings that this alley already services for ingress and egress into the residential buildings. How is it even possible to have this alley overburden by the large 6 story building?
5. Are the 3 projects to be constructed simultaneously or consecutively?
6. What are construction hours for each of the major projects?
7. What timeline for completion of each building is?
8. What is the status of the projects with respect to the approval of the city council?
9. When is construction to begin?
'-pedestrian access from Euclid Court to Euclid Street as available today through Lot 7• -homeless services? Also re: two marijuana dispensaries recently approved/opening within a few blocks • -eligibility and process for applying for / entering into these new housing units I am concerned about reduction of parking spots on both Euclid and 14th St. considering that the streets are permit parking. I am also concerned about the traffic on 14th St. due to the fact that it is a major north south artery for Santa Monica. I would like to be reassured about the Safety and management of the buildings for the residence that currently live on 14th St.
And I would like to know if there will be a specific number for current residence to call if we have any concerns or problems that arise from the construction and the ultimate occupation of the buildings.
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Three things:•
1) how is the city planning to address the lack of parking in the area around the hospital? It’s already hard enough to •nd parking there and now this project will be losing valuable parking spaces.• 2) how do you vet the residence of these places to make sure they’re actually Santa Monica residence who need a•ordable housing?• 3) i’d like to see some evidence of your track record in success of these types of projects. Do they actually end up helping low income and people who need affordable housing, or do they become hot beds for crime and trashy like a lot of housing projects do? Where is the lost parking going to be ?
I am concerned about losing the parking lot in Euclid St. as it is used constantly by those who do not have parking permits.
Concerned about height of buildings and how that impacts neighbors Hugely supportive of more affordable housing projects to address our dire need for more housing! As a resident at 14th and Arizona, however, this would be a huge influx of affordable-only units all at once within a very small radius of my house. Past studies have shown that concentrating all affordable housing in one small area leads to ghettoization (e.g. Regent Park in Toronto, Canada). Furthermore, 130 units is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the housing crisis which estimates a 500,000 unit deficit for Los Angeles alone. I strongly advocate for building a much larger, taller, mixed-income development that preserves the 130 affordable units while also adding at least as many market-rate units to restore the income balance within our neighborhood. There are lots of case studies that can act as examples for responsible urban development and mixing affordable, subsidized, and transitional housing in a way that optimizes quality of life for everyone involved. Thanks for reading! What is the timeline for completion of the projects?
As a neighbor on Euclid, I feel the neighborhood was not consulted about the building's intended use. The website even hides the fact that the development team has already designated the Euclid location for supportive "homeless housing", as indicated in a council meeting presentation. This is very disingenuous, and the development team isn't seeking the neighborhood's feedback beyond the building's cosmetics.
The city council suggested during a meeting that the location should be used for affordable senior housing because of its unique proximity to medical facilities, pharmacies, and grocery stores. However, this recommendation seems to be ignored, just like the neighborhood. I don't want this location to be used for supportive homeless housing. I support affordable senior housing because it's a population that needs significant assistance, and this location is uniquely situated near essential services.
In terms of design, the building is massive and towers over the neighborhood buildings. The current proposed design doesn't blend in and won't age well. Nothing about this proposal takes the neighborhood into account.
I learned about the May 22-23 meetings only after they had happened. I am quite upset, since I live at 1128 Euclid street, which is just about across the street from the development. I feel you should have given more publicity to this hearing. I see further meetings are scheduled for July 8 and 10. I will do my best to inform neighbors, but I feel you should do more to spread the word - pamphlets and posters in nearby shops should not be too expensive to produce and distribute.
Thank you for building a•ordable housing.•
WE NEED IT!•
I am a single family home owner and I SUPPORT BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING• I don't care about parking.
Yes. I am a member of HangOutDoGood. ANd a big supporter of this project. HODG does a lot of work in affordable housing, and from our experience we have found that the most effective builder of new affordable housing is Sam Prater from Room + Board. I think that's partly because Sam doesn't have these meetings, which really are just an invitation for people to bitch. Instead he just starts them. By the time the neighborhood realizes what]s happening -- which they usually don't -- the building is up and the programming has started and they are cool wiht it. The anticipation is the worst part. Most folks who live near affordable housing projects like this, don't even know they do. So that's my comment. Jusst build it!
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) I propose to swap the assigned building types on Euclid street with the 14th street ones.• Moving the supportive homeless housing to 14th Street near UCLA's medical facility sounds like a smart move. Being close to UCLA means easier access to medical care, which could really make a difference for folks who need it. Plus, if we focus on building low-income family units on Euclid Street, we're helping families in need while still making sure they're near community resources. It's all about finding the best balance to support everyone in the neighborhood.
As a member of Westside 4 Everyone and Abundant Housing LA, I’d like to voice my support for the project! I think adding housing is necessary for our community but this building as proposed is too large for the neighborhood and does not provide enough parking in a residential area already heavily impacted by the adjacent commercial district.
Hello,•
•
I heard that the supportive homeless housing is going to be farther from UCLA. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. You can walk from the alley behind 14th street through UCLA’s open parking lot to the ER in about one minute. I’m guessing the walk from euclid is more like five or more minutes. I think family housing should be on Euclid because it’s on a way less busy street, and the population with higher medical needs should be closer to UCLA. Also, it looks like the supportive housing has a lot more units, so a lot more people will be coming and going. The 14th street alley is just a parking lot, while on Euclid, it’s surrounded by housing. I wish you had spent more time understanding the different locations.
It’s pretty obvious that Euclid is a more family-suitable street—dramatically quieter and safer. Just look at the accidents reported through Santa Monica government. You will •nd data that supports that Euclid is much safer for kids compared to 14th.• •
Please switch these two proposals. Put the family housing on the more friendly, less trafficked street, and put the residents who will need more care closer to UCLA. That seems like the way it should’ve been designed from the beginning. Euclid street has no tra•ic and is safer for kids. The other street is very busy and closer to medical help and services.• •
Also, is there a way to make the back parts less like huge boxes? It’s a shame people are going to lose sunlight and be towered over. The buildings from the side are pretty forbidding. And please consider color choices that will look good not only today because they’re trendy but also into the future. Nothing around has those kinds of colors.• •
Thanks.
I am writing to express my opposition to the new homeless housing development planned for Euclid St. in Santa Monica, CA. I believe that the proposed location is not suitable for such a facility, given the neighborhood's focus on safety and family-friendly atmosphere.• •
I propose that the supportive homeless housing be considered for 14th Street, closer to the UCLA medical facility. This location would provide better access to resources and support services for the homeless residents due to its proximity to essential facilities.• •
As an alternative, the plan for the development on Euclid St. to be dedicated to low-income families makes much more sense. With the homeless housing comprising 65 units, there is a need to prioritize housing solutions for low-income families as well, considering that the low-income family plan consists of only 45 units.• •
I have two small children and we walk through the whole neighborhood. From groceries to restaurants, play and school. We worry that a homeless housing solution can add to an already worsening safety situation. • •
•
Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter.
I did not receive anything in the mail regarding last nights meeting nor did my neighbors. The sign posted in the lot is not visible to the street and is also bent in half not allowing people to be clearly advised. This lot is also used daily for people at the hospital and there is insufficient parking for neighbors as you have taken away parking for the amount of residents living & shopping nearby. This lot is also used as a thoroughfare for residents on 15th St as you took away all residential parking in the 1200 block of 15th St. The size of the building proposed is oversized and unnecessary and will cause much congestion for students walking to the nearby school and elderly to the hospital . If you plan to build on this lot you will need more parking and less residents. Please consider as I am very familiar with all areas in Santa Monica.
Yes- you’re taking away our already limited parking lots that we need, those going to the hospital, the surrounding businesses will have no parking and you’re increasing the density in an already crowded neighborhood. We need those parking lots— they are almost full every day. And you cannot guarantee safety and security for those living near this new housing project.
I have many concerns. Too many to list here
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed development for affordable rental housing. I appreciate the city's efforts to address this important issue. However, I have concerns about the suitability of the proposed location at Euclid/Wilshire. The current lot provides essential public parking in an area where parking is already a significant challenge, serving not only residents but also visitors and local businesses. Removing this lot will exacerbate parking difficulties, impacting residents who rely on permit-only street parking and visitors to the area. Additionally, the availability of parking is crucial for local businesses to thrive, and losing these parking spots could deter customers and negatively affect business operations. Instead of converting the lot into a rental housing structure, consider enhancing its utility as a public parking space. Adding EV charging stations could generate additional revenue for the city and support the growing need for sustainable infrastructure. While the need for affordable housing is undeniable, this particular location may not be the best choice. Other sites might offer better integration with existing infrastructure and less disruption to the community. In conclusion, I urge the Development Team to reconsider the use of the Euclid/Wilshire lot. Maintaining and enhancing it as a public parking facility would better serve the community's immediate needs while still exploring other viable locations for affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration.
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) I understand the importance of balancing the needs of all residents and ensuring the best possible environment for everyone. With that in mind, I would like to propose a change that I believe would greatly bene•t both the families and the individuals in the supportive housing.• •
Moving the homeless supportive housing closer to the UCLA medical facilities (14th) makes practical sense, as these residents are likely to need more frequent access to medical services compared to young families. Additionally, placing family housing on Euclid Street, which is much quieter and safer for children, would provide a more suitable environment for families.•
•
Euclid is a quiet neighborhood street with no traffic lights at Arizona or Santa Monica Blvd, making it a safer area for children to play and families to gather. The occasional block party get-togethers among neighbors create a sense of community that would be ideal for families. In contrast, 14th Street is a much busier, cut-through street that people use to get to the highway, and having children step out onto such a street poses safety concerns.• •
It appears that the buildings at Euclid and 14th are nearly identical, and this change would be very easy to make with many positive outcomes.• •
Thank you for considering this suggestion. I believe this change would create a better living situation for all residents and help meet their respective needs more effectively.
Who will own this complex?•
Who decided on the density?•
What neighborhood circumstances were considered when this was decided? Not at this time.
We represent community members of Homeowners Associations (HOA) located on the 1200 Block of 14th Street and Euclid, between Wilshire and Arizona, including the HOA on Arizona Ave. Our members have invested their life savings in these properties, which have historically seen stability and increased value, providing valuable retirement and lifelong assets.
We understand the acute housing problem faced by many in our City. We want to •nd a mutually acceptable path forward to contribute to the a•ordable housing solution while minimizing the impact on our members and property owners.• •
We have signi•cant concerns and open questions about the proposed development in our neighborhood, speci•cally at 1217 Euclid St. • •
We respectfully request that the Santa Monica City Council and the contracted developer engage with us to address the following points:• •
Building Height: We understand that Santa Monica Civic Codes for Zone R3 specify a height limit of 30 feet. We kindly ask for clari•cation on whether the proposed development will adhere to this restriction to maintain the character and aesthetic of our neighborhood.• Community Integration, Safety, and Health: We appreciate that the facility aims to provide housing for individuals with mental health challenges and substance abuse issues. We want to work together to create a safe, integrated, and supportive community for all residents. We propose forming a neighborhood advisory committee to collaborate with the city and developer on strategies to foster a welcoming and inclusive environment.• Traffic and Safety: With the proposed 65 units, we anticipate increased vehicle traffic in Euclid Court. We request that the developer and the city collaborate with us to create a comprehensive traffic management plan that ensures the safety of pedestrians and residents while mitigating congestion. We are open to exploring various solutions, such as placing the garage entrance and exit on Euclid Street.•
Parking: The proposed development may impact parking availability for current residents and guests. We ask that the developer and the city collaborate with us to •nd a viable solution that addresses the parking needs of both the new development and the existing community.• •
We are committed to engaging in open and constructive dialogue to find mutually beneficial solutions. Our goal is to balance the needs of our community with the imperative of enabling housing for vulnerable groups. By working together collaboratively, we can ensure that the proposed development aligns with the best interests of our neighborhood and the broader Santa Monica community.
I am very concerned about this development. This will negatively a•ect tra•ic on the road, as well as parking. • Also, I would like to know what are the requirements for getting the affordable housing? Is it for homeless? Will it be free? Do they have to have a job? Is it nightly/weekly/yearly leasing, or is it purchase only? etc.
What additional safety measures are going to be taken to protect and keep safe the hundreds of residents on this block and surrounding blocks? The unhoused community often times have mental health issues and drug/alcohol issues that cause them to behave in a dangerous and threatening way. There are many children, women, elderly and everyone that live in this neighborhood that already are threatened by this subset of the unhoused without the lure of attracting more to the area. With this development I believe more unsafe situations will occur in this area. What is the city and the owners of this property doing specifically to enhance the safety of the residents in the area? I hope you can make the recording available after the event.
How much parking will be provided? My understanding is that this would not need required parking, under AB 2097, since it is close to transit, so I would hope parking that drives up housing costs and promotes driving would be minimized.
Proposed housing structures to replace current parking to cause more traffic congestion in the neighborhood 14th Street between Wilshire and Arizona also on Euclid same cross streets. Making it harder for patrons of these businesses to find parking-causing more businesses on Wilshire to close down.
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) I want to make sure that people with housing vouchers have a fair opportunity to get apartments in this development.
Do you accept a Santa Monica Section 8 Housing Voucher? Too much of the new construction in Santa Monica excludes families, adult children who need to take care of their parents/multi-generational families by only providing units with one or two bedrooms. Will there be units with 3+ bedrooms? Also, what will be the impact on public EV charging stations during and after construction? Seems like a really great project
Having three large developments in just a couple of blocks feels inappropriately concentrated for a residential area. The building's use, scale, and design don't consider the surrounding neighborhood. The development team's website is misleading; the design page shows the smallest of the three buildings for scale and includes examples of three-story structures, but these buildings are disproportionately larger. Without knowing much about this development team, it feels like their primary goal is to bait and switch or hope people don't notice that this is being built without regard to the surrounding area.• •
The design is very unattractive—dare I say lazy and ugly? The scale is towering. I don't see any consideration given to this neighborhood, not even to avoid blocking the sun for the two-story homes nearby. A courtyard for the old movie theater building? Who cares. This project is poorly designed and unsuitable. It's being forced into a neighborhood without respect for the existing community. Thanks for cramming this giant mess into our neighborhood as if we don't matter and as if only homeless housing matters at all costs.
What are the requirements for housing? Thank you so much. • I’m 71 and currently in a Section 8 Apt. in Mar Vista and have lived here for over ten years. I’m in the last Section 8 apartment in the building. The landlord thinks of me as a good tenant, however, she would love for me to leave because she wants to raise the rent. I’ve been extremely unhappy here due to many reasons(many regarding my physical and mental wellbeing). Previously, I was homeless for three years, awaiting housing. BTW, I lived in a lovely triplex in Santa Monica for 4-5 years. Excellent references and good credit rating.
No
How many units? How many studios, 1 bdr, 2 bdr, and 3 bdr units? How many at each site? Will there be parking for all of the units at each site? These are all small lots. Will there be any open space? There are no parks near these sites. Each of these sites is next to low rise or single story houses. What will the transition be? A friend of mine lives in the 17-story City of Santa Monica low-income housing building at 7th and Colorado. He is delighted to be paying ~$550/month instead of ~2,500/month in rent. He hasn't complained that the building is a simple tall box with an "unfriendly double-loaded corridor" down the middle of every •oor.• •
My question: How many units could you build on these three sites if you went up to 17 stories (or more) and used a maximally efficient "unfriendly double-loaded corridor" design? Your current design will provide 127 affordable units. We need thousands of units. How many units are we losing through your lovely, creative designs? we live one block north of euclid project. It is crucial for underground parking to be included in the project. Parking details, estimated need, etc not included in design details. Parking will be a problem with Wilshire, Vons and adjoining residential streets already at capacity. Underground parking to accommodate residents is crucial to the project and the neighborhood. thank you.
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Date:5/24/2024
To:
From:[name removed]
Subject:Wilshire Blvd. and 14th Street Zoom Community Meeting (please disregard the cap lock, (visual issues)
GREETINGS, I ATTENDED THE ZOOM MEETING 5/23/2024 REGARDING THE 14TH ST. PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS. I KNOW I AM WASTING MY TIME, AS THIS COMMENT OPPORTUNITY IS JUST A FORMALITY THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT AS PART OF THE PROCESS.
YOU ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN OUR COMMENTS AS YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE YOUR MINDS UP AND THE PROCESS OF BULIDING THESE OVER SIZED UGLY BUILDINGS BEGAN A LONG TIME AGO YOU ARE ALWAYS TOUTING DIVERSITY, BUT THIS AND ALL PRIOR CITY COUNCILS MEMEBERS HAVE BEEN THE LEAST DIVERSE AS YOU ALL HAVE THE SAME MIND SET, WHICH IS, YOU WILL ACCEPT AND LIKE ANY THING WE WANT TO BUILD, WE WILL NOT CHANGE OUR MINDS AS WE KNOW BETTER HOW TO RUN THE CITY THAN YOU, DON’T QUESTION OR
OBJECT TO OUR GENIUS
WHAT WENT ON DURING COVID AND AFTER WHERE THE STATE AND CITY JOINED INTO SOME KIND OF ALLIANCE WHERE YOU NOW CAN BUILD THESE MAMOUTH 20+ STORY BUILDINGS ANYWHERE YOU WANT? GOOD BYE TO WHAT SANTA MONICA USED TO BE.
YOU KNOW YOU WILL ALWAYS GET YOUR WAY EVEN IF THE CITAZEN DON’T WANT YOUR IDEAS. EXAMPLE: GOOD BYE TO AVAILABLE PARKING, GOOD BYE TO SANTA MONICA AIRPORT / THE MIRA MAR BEAST / SANTA MONICA BLVD GEARY TOWER / THE LITE RAIL / 17TH STREET BIKE MAZE / GELSONS MONSTROSITY PARKING: THE 14TH ST. & EUCLID OPEN LOTS HAVE SUPPORTED THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FOR DECAIDS, THEY ARE ALWAYS BUSY AND FULL. UCLA HOSPITAL IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS AS WELL AS LOCAL BUSINESS AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WHO PARK THERE FOR THE DAY, FAMILY, FRIENDS, YOU ARE DISTROYING (49) PARKING SPOTS @1217 EUCLID AND (49) PARKING SPOTS @1211 14THST. THE BULIDING WILL HAVE 65 HOUSES WITH ONLY 43 AVAILABLE PARKING AND 14TH ST. WILL HAVE AT LEAST EQUAL PARKING (45) HOUSES TO (43) PARKING. TOTAL OF (98) LOST PARKING SPOTS. WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE SUPPOSE TO GO? NO NOT ON THE E-BIKES, THERE IS
ALREADY NO ROOM ON THE STREETS TO PARK NOW
SHADE: HAVING LISTENED TO THE PRESENTATION. THE ARCHETECH MINIMIZED THE BUILDING SHADE ISSUE, WELL IF YOU PUT A 6 STORY BUILDING IN FRONT OF A 2 STORY AND 4 STORY DWELLING, FACEING WEST, YOU HAVE BUILT YET ANOTHER DARK CANYON OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE UGLY AND RESEMBLE CARGO CONTAINERS. ONCE THERE WAS LIGHT
AND NOW THERE WILL BE DARKNESS
BUILDING UTILIZATION AND COORDINATION WITH UCLA:
SUGGESTION SWAP THE EUCLID PROPERTY WITH THE 14TH STREET PROPERTY. IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HAVE THE EUCLID PROPERTY THAT NEEDS RESOURCES TO BE IN CLOSE PROXCINITY TO ULCA MEDICAL CENTER THAT HAS RESOURCES AND BOTH FACILITIES CAN LEVERAGE AND INTERGRATE RESOURCES. THE FOOT PRINT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SIZE, SO NO BIG DEAL TO SWAP PROJECTS.
THE 14TH STREET PROPERTY WOULD FIT BETTER INTO THE EXISTING EUCLID NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE EUCLID PROPERTY WOULD BETTER INTERGRATE INTO THE UCLA CAMPUS RESOURCES AND LIASION TOGETHER.
WITH THE SWITCH OF THE BUILDING THERE IS LESS EXISTING RESIDENT DISRUPTION. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW RESIDENTS ON 14TH STREET VS. EUCLID HAS AT LEAST 12 RESIDENTS AFFECTED.
SECURITY: THE GROUND LEVEL SPACE IS NICE BUT I DON’T THINK YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THE NEED FOR SECURITY GATES, DON’T FORGET SANTA MONICA IS HOME OF THE HOMELESS.
LASTLY, DON’T FORGET TO GIVE YOURSELFVES THOSE PHONY ENVIRONMENTAL AWARDS.
YOU STILL HAVE A PARKING ISSUE TO RESOLVE, CARS WILL NOT GO AWAY NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.
Please send me a reminder of the meetings
As a mom with two young kids who lives on Euclid, I’m puzzled by the current proposal to place families on the very busy 14th and the homeless support housing farther from the hospital. I walk the neighborhoods every day with a stroller and avoid 14th because it’s so busy in the morning and evening. I can’t imagine my kids going outside on their own on 14th. The two buildings are identical, so it would be much safer and more practical to switch the family housing to Euclid, which has very little traffic, and the homeless support housing to 14th, closer to the hospital. This proposal doesn’t make common sense. Additionally, both buildings’ designs don’t seem to blend well into the neighborhood. I kindly ask that you make an effort to better understand the communities you are working with.
Thank you, [name removed]
I've reviewed the plans and I respectfully request a consideration to move the supportive homeless housing currently showing on Euclid to 14th Street which is closer to the UCLA medical facility. 14th street as a cross cutting corridor could accommodate the activity this would bring. Euclid Street has more residents with children and families and would cause unnecessary safety considerations on that street. I appreciate the consideration. Thank you Hello,
I'm AHLA's affordable housing advocate in Santa Monica. Please let me know how I can assist with your community outreach sessions, or if your need a letter of support from AHLA. [name removed]
Hello,
As a mom with two young kids who lives on Euclid, I’m puzzled by the current proposal to place families on the very busy 14th and the homeless support housing farther from the hospital. I walk the neighborhoods every day with a stroller and avoid 14th because it’s so busy in the morning and evening. I can’t imagine my kids going outside on their own on 14th. The two buildings are identical, so it would be much safer and more practical to switch the family housing to Euclid, which has very little traffic, and the homeless support housing to 14th, closer to the hospital. This proposal doesn’t make common sense. Additionally, both buildings’ designs don’t seem to blend well into the neighborhood. I kindly ask that you make an effort to better understand the communities you are working with.
Thank you,
[name removed]
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Date:5/24/2024
To:HCHC
From:[name removed]
Subject:Wilshire Blvd. and 14th Street Zoom Community Meeting (please disregard the cap lock, (visual issues)
GREETINGS, I ATTENDED THE ZOOM MEETING 5/23/2024 REGARDING THE 14TH ST. PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS. I KNOW I AM WASTING MY TIME, AS THIS COMMENT OPPORTUNITY IS JUST A FORMALITY THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT AS PART OF THE PROCESS.
YOU ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN OUR COMMENTS AS YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE YOUR MINDS UP AND THE PROCESS OF BULIDING THESE OVER SIZED UGLY BUILDINGS BEGAN A LONG TIME AGO YOU ARE ALWAYS TOUTING DIVERSITY, BUT THIS AND ALL PRIOR CITY COUNCILS MEMEBERS HAVE BEEN THE LEAST DIVERSE AS YOU ALL HAVE THE SAME MIND SET, WHICH IS, YOU WILL ACCEPT AND LIKE ANY THING WE WANT TO BUILD, WE WILL NOT CHANGE OUR MINDS AS WE KNOW BETTER HOW TO RUN THE CITY THAN YOU, DON’T QUESTION OR OBJECT
TO OUR GENIUS
WHAT WENT ON DURING COVID AND AFTER WHERE THE STATE AND CITY JOINED INTO SOME KIND OF ALLIANCE WHERE YOU NOW CAN BUILD THESE MAMOUTH 20+ STORY BUILDINGS ANYWHERE YOU WANT? GOOD BYE TO WHAT SANTA MONICA USED TO BE.
YOU KNOW YOU WILL ALWAYS GET YOUR WAY EVEN IF THE CITAZEN DON’T WANT YOUR IDEAS. EXAMPLE: GOOD BYE TO AVAILABLE PARKING, GOOD BYE TO SANTA MONICA AIRPORT / THE MIRA MAR BEAST / SANTA MONICA BLVD GEARY TOWER / THE LITE RAIL / 17TH STREET BIKE MAZE / GELSONS MONSTROSITY PARKING: THE 14TH ST. & EUCLID OPEN LOTS HAVE SUPPORTED THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FOR DECAIDS, THEY ARE ALWAYS BUSY AND FULL. UCLA HOSPITAL IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS AS WELL AS LOCAL BUSINESS AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WHO PARK THERE FOR THE DAY, FAMILY, FRIENDS, YOU ARE DISTROYING (49) PARKING SPOTS @1217 EUCLID AND (49) PARKING SPOTS @1211 14THST. THE BULIDING WILL HAVE 65 HOUSES WITH ONLY 43 AVAILABLE PARKING AND 14TH ST. WILL HAVE AT LEAST EQUAL PARKING (45) HOUSES TO (43) PARKING. TOTAL OF (98) LOST PARKING SPOTS. WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE SUPPOSE TO GO? NO NOT ON THE E-BIKES, THERE IS
ALREADY NO ROOM ON THE STREETS TO PARK NOW
SHADE: HAVING LISTENED TO THE PRESENTATION. THE ARCHETECH MINIMIZED THE BUILDING SHADE ISSUE, WELL IF YOU PUT A 6 STORY BUILDING IN FRONT OF A 2 STORY AND 4 STORY DWELLING, FACEING WEST, YOU HAVE BUILT YET ANOTHER DARK CANYON OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE UGLY AND RESEMBLE CARGO CONTAINERS. ONCE THERE WAS LIGHT
AND NOW THERE WILL BE DARKNESS
BUILDING UTILIZATION AND COORDINATION WITH UCLA:
SUGGESTION SWAP THE EUCLID PROPERTY WITH THE 14TH STREET PROPERTY. IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HAVE THE EUCLID PROPERTY THAT NEEDS RESOURCES TO BE IN CLOSE PROXCINITY TO ULCA MEDICAL CENTER THAT HAS RESOURCES AND BOTH FACILITIES CAN LEVERAGE AND INTERGRATE RESOURCES. THE FOOT PRINT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SIZE, SO NO BIG DEAL TO SWAP PROJECTS.
THE 14TH STREET PROPERTY WOULD FIT BETTER INTO THE EXISTING EUCLID NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE EUCLID PROPERTY WOULD BETTER INTERGRATE INTO THE UCLA CAMPUS RESOURCES AND LIASION TOGETHER.
WITH THE SWITCH OF THE BUILDING THERE IS LESS EXISTING RESIDENT DISRUPTION. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW RESIDENTS ON 14TH STREET VS. EUCLID HAS AT LEAST 12 RESIDENTS AFFECTED.
SECURITY: THE GROUND LEVEL SPACE IS NICE BUT I DON’T THINK YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THE NEED FOR SECURITY GATES, DON’T FORGET SANTA MONICA IS HOME OF THE HOMELESS.
LASTLY, DON’T FORGET TO GIVE YOURSELFVES THOSE PHONY ENVIRONMENTAL AWARDS.
YOU STILL HAVE A PARKING ISSUE TO RESOLVE, CARS WILL NOT GO AWAY NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.
Please email me back so that I know you have received my comments.
Thanks,
Date: 5/24/2024
To: HCHC
From: [name removed]
Subject: Wilshire Blvd. and 14th Street Zoom Community Meeting (please disregard the cap lock, (visual issues)
GREETINGS, I ATTENDED THE ZOOM MEETING 5/23/2024 REGARDING THE 14TH ST. PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS. I KNOW I AM WASTING MY TIME, AS THIS COMMENT OPPORTUNITY IS JUST A FORMALITY THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT AS PART OF THE PROCESS.
YOU ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN OUR COMMENTS AS YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE YOUR MINDS UP AND THE PROCESS OF BULIDING THESE OVER SIZED UGLY BUILDINGS BEGAN A LONG TIME AGO YOU ARE ALWAYS TOUTING DIVERSITY, BUT THIS AND ALL PRIOR CITY COUNCILS MEMEBERS HAVE BEEN THE LEAST DIVERSE AS YOU ALL HAVE THE SAME MIND SET, WHICH IS, YOU WILL ACCEPT AND LIKE ANY THING WE WANT TO BUILD, WE WILL NOT CHANGE OUR MINDS AS WE KNOW BETTER HOW TO RUN THE CITY THAN YOU, DON’T QUESTION OR OBJECT
TO OUR GENIUS
WHAT WENT ON DURING COVID AND AFTER WHERE THE STATE AND CITY JOINED INTO SOME KIND OF ALLIANCE WHERE YOU NOW CAN BUILD THESE MAMOUTH 20+ STORY BUILDINGS ANYWHERE YOU WANT? GOOD BYE TO WHAT SANTA MONICA USED TO BE.
YOU KNOW YOU WILL ALWAYS GET YOUR WAY EVEN IF THE CITAZEN DON’T WANT YOUR IDEAS. EXAMPLE: GOOD BYE TO AVAILABLE PARKING, GOOD BYE TO SANTA MONICA AIRPORT / THE MIRA MAR BEAST / SANTA MONICA BLVD GEARY TOWER / THE LITE RAIL / 17TH STREET BIKE MAZE / GELSONS MONSTROSITY PARKING: THE 14TH ST. & EUCLID OPEN LOTS HAVE SUPPORTED THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FOR DECAIDS, THEY ARE ALWAYS BUSY AND FULL. UCLA HOSPITAL IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS AS WELL AS LOCAL BUSINESS AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WHO PARK THERE FOR THE DAY, FAMILY, FRIENDS, YOU ARE DISTROYING (49) PARKING SPOTS @1217 EUCLID AND (49) PARKING SPOTS @1211 14THST. THE BULIDING WILL HAVE 65 HOUSES WITH ONLY 43 AVAILABLE PARKING AND 14TH ST. WILL HAVE AT LEAST EQUAL PARKING (45) HOUSES TO (43) PARKING. TOTAL OF (98) LOST PARKING SPOTS. WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE SUPPOSE TO GO? NO NOT ON THE E-BIKES, THERE IS
ALREADY NO ROOM ON THE STREETS TO PARK NOW
SHADE: HAVING LISTENED TO THE PRESENTATION. THE ARCHETECH MINIMIZED THE BUILDING SHADE ISSUE, WELL IF YOU PUT A 6 STORY BUILDING IN FRONT OF A 2 STORY AND 4 STORY DWELLING, FACEING WEST, YOU HAVE BUILT YET ANOTHER DARK CANYON OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE UGLY AND RESEMBLE CARGO CONTAINERS. ONCE THERE WAS LIGHT
AND NOW THERE WILL BE DARKNESS
BUILDING UTILIZATION AND COORDINATION WITH UCLA:
SUGGESTION SWAP THE EUCLID PROPERTY WITH THE 14TH STREET PROPERTY. IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HAVE THE EUCLID PROPERTY THAT NEEDS RESOURCES TO BE IN CLOSE PROXCINITY TO ULCA MEDICAL CENTER THAT HAS RESOURCES AND BOTH FACILITIES CAN LEVERAGE AND INTERGRATE RESOURCES. THE FOOT PRINT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SIZE, SO NO BIG DEAL TO SWAP PROJECTS.
THE 14TH STREET PROPERTY WOULD FIT BETTER INTO THE EXISTING EUCLID NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE EUCLID PROPERTY WOULD BETTER INTERGRATE INTO THE UCLA CAMPUS RESOURCES AND LIASION TOGETHER.
WITH THE SWITCH OF THE BUILDING THERE IS LESS EXISTING RESIDENT DISRUPTION. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW RESIDENTS ON 14TH STREET VS. EUCLID HAS AT LEAST 12 RESIDENTS AFFECTED.
SECURITY: THE GROUND LEVEL SPACE IS NICE BUT I DON’T THINK YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THE NEED FOR SECURITY GATES, DON’T FORGET SANTA MONICA IS HOME OF THE HOMELESS.
LASTLY, DON’T FORGET TO GIVE YOURSELFVES THOSE PHONY ENVIRONMENTAL AWARDS.YOU STILL HAVE A PARKING ISSUE TO RESOLVE, CARS WILL NOT GO AWAY NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Hello,
I hope this finds you well. I am inquiring whether the agendas for the community meetings which are to be held on July 8 and July 10 will be the same as the meetings on May 22 and May 23? That is, will the topics of those meetings include discussion around the 1217 Euclid Street project? Thank you so very much,
[name removed]
Hello again,
Last week, you so kindly called me back to explain the purpose of the 4 meetings, and I'm so appreciative of your assistance in that regard! I thought that there would be someone from my family who would be able to attend either of the first two meetings, but alas, they weren't able to attend either. Might there be a recording of the May 23 meeting that could be viewed? And/or a summary of what was discussed?
Thank you so very much and wishing you all the best,
[name removed]
Hello,
I just wanted to follow up on my previous email. Given today is the last day to provide comments, it would be very helpful to ascertain (if at all possible) some of the comments that have already been given.
Thank you so very much,
[name removed]
Dear Developer and City Council:
Among other significant concerns regarding above referenced projects, please take notice of the following major issues:
Environmental tests showing no significant impact on the environment:
As developer promised at the May 23 zoom meeting, please provide a copy of environmental tests showing no significant impact on the environment specific to these projects.
Please note our position that the 6th Cycle Housing Element Environment Impact Report is insufficient because it was performed before these projects came into sight.
If not tests specific to these projects were performed, we request that they be performed before commencement of the projects.
These 3 projects are so extensive and intrusive into environment that these tests must be done. If the developer will not do them, this email serves as notice of significant risk of personal injuries that are likely to result from toxic and environmental torts that may be committed via performance of these projects. (Large scale includes construction of over 7 years, large 3 construction sites within a block from each other, loss of parking resulting in high congestion due to cars cruising and trying to find parking, etc.).
Euclid project - problem with using the alley for ingress and egress for the new proposed building.
During the meeting, the developer characterized the alley as a two way alley. However, it is not a two way alley. It only can provide ingress and egress for one car at a time. All residential buildings located on 14th street - and there are at least six residential apartment complexes - use this one car alley to enter and exit their own parking garages.
We do not believe this alley can possibly support another 40+ cars for ingress and egress. At a minimum, as part of this extensive project, the developer should develop and significantly improve the alley, including widening and repaving it, prior to commencement of the Euclid construction. Otherwise, current residents lose access to their own parking.
Euclid and 14th Parking. As part of request for proposal, the developer was under an obligation to propose and develop parking for the general public given that the projects take all major public parking in the area. The developer failed to do so. Removing the parking lots on Euclid and 14th has a significant adverse effect on small businesses on Wilshire, and also on those tenants who rent rooms/apartments at the nearby residential buildings and do not have parking and use Euclid lot to park as their permanent parking. Having tenants to walk to their residences 2-3 blocks(provided they even find parking elsewhere) increases dangers.
While the developer provided parking alternatives, they are completely inadequate and include vague statements like “We will consider and evaluate additional options to provide district parking and EV charging, like acquiring parcels adjacent to the development sites to be developed as freestanding, independently ?nanced parking solutions.” This solution is inadequate because we all know the developer will not "acquire any parcels." In fact, the developer is not even buying the parking lots for the fair market value and is getting a lease for $1/per year for 65 year for the city. The community, including residents and small businesses, will struggle tremendously.
Permanent support housing. Homeless tenants will have very limited 8 am - 4pm supervision during weekdays only. During the meetings, it was made clear that this is not a sober house and that those tenants who use drugs and have various crime-related violations will be housed. Developer was unable to answer a question as to what they would do if residents of nearby buildings are attacked by these tenants.
Developer lacks experience with handling 40 units of permanent support housing. In response to request for proposal, they stated that they only have 100 homeless tenants in 10 different buildings, this is 10 tenants per building. The lack of experience is evident from the minimal supervision that the developer will provide to the 40 units of homeless tenants.
Why is Developer receiving these parking lots as a gift?
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) "Hi, my name is [name removed], and you graciously returned a previous message that I sent concerningmeeting attendance.I was wondering, though, if there is a way to either watch a recording of the Zoom orif there are any notes publicly or notes on those two meetings will become publicly availableprior to the next set of meetings on July 8th and July 9th.If so, that would be great to know about and to be able to access.I can be reached at [phone number removed] or via email at [email removed].Thank you so much.Bye." Thank you so much. I appreciate your response and the attached materials.
All best,
[name removed]
We hereby object to the gift of land city is giving the Developer:
This is valuable land and the city should receive fair market value for it, especially since it is removing it from use by the general public.
In sum, all of the above major issues must be resolved before commencement of the construction. We request that the developer and/or City Council respond to this email by June 14, 2024, with the explanation of how they plan to deal with all of the issues showing that the projects will currently create more problems than they will solve.
Thank you in advance for your attention to these matters. --
[name removed]
11.A.l
Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: L. Comments Submitted to HCHC - May 8 - 31, 2024 [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Comments submitted to HCHC during public comment period from June 24 through July 25, 2024 LET'S MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT A WIN/WIN EXPERIENCE. PLACE THE HOMELESS HOUSING OVER THE NET EXISTING PUBLIC PARKING OR EXPAND THE 14TH STREET LOT TO COMPENSATE FOR THE NET PARKING SPACE LOSS ON 16TH AND EUCLID STREETS.
PLEASE SOLVE PROBLEMS, DON'T CREATE THEM, DR SOMERS
I have lived in this town 30 years and I am completely opposed to this project.
There are far better locations to house chronically mentally ill and drug addicted people than a few blocks from schools and in the middle of our business district, which has enough trouble as it is. This is a disincentive to business, recreation and living for the middle class. People have worked their whole lives to maintain a middle class lifestyle in this part of Santa Monica. What gives chronically mentally ill, homeless, and the unemployed the right to live in Santa Monica, especially at a point in time we can't control drug addled people on our streets and there's no stopping petty crime because the police have been prevented from enforcing the law.
What's more, there aren't enough parking spaces on the street now. Not in my neighborhood, which is very close to where these projects are proposed. On top of that, the developers don't plan enough spaces for all the units? Who the hell planned this? The only ones who'll benefit are the developers and the buildings. They'll take their money and run, leaving residents with the mess. These buildings will tower over their neighbors, impacting daylight access and privacy to many existing apartments. Please consolidate courtyard and open-to-sky space towards the south and east recognizing apartment neighbors. Move more massing to the center and northwest towards the commercial buildings lining Wilshire. Consider the impact on apartments across the alley behind the Euclid site whose southwest-facing living rooms and balconies stand to lose daylight. Internally too, the present design, with multiple tall, narrow courtyards and covered outdoor space, including covered landscape areas, is more suited to a tropical climate than our coastal cool Mediterranean climate, where sunlight is a needed commodity. The Bridge Housing proposed design for this site addressed these conditions quite well, with significant setbacks and stepbacks to the south and east. Apply such massing adjustments to mitigate the overwhelming scale contrast with neighbors, as well as by limiting ceiling heights to 8'-0". Programmatically, evaluate unit size as well as corridor circulation efficiency for the benefit of massing and height reductions.
In conversation at the 7.8.2024 meeting, Kevin Daly was very receptive to design adjustments to address these impacts, saying the presented design is conceptual and there will be significant design evolution addressing these concerns. But such individual conversations at the perimeter tables at the meeting were not recorded and we neighbors are very concerned about our Please share the recordings from community town halls. Please also confirm the status of this proposal including dates for decisions and development timelines.
I wanted to thank HCHC for listening to neighbor feedback by moving the affordable housing with families to Euclid Street. As a neighbor who walks daily, I was worried the proposal was going to put young children on the busy 14th Street, which did not feel safe. I’m guessing moving supportive housing closer to UCLA might also help that group of people who might be more servicedependent.
The architect during the presentation mentioned the Euclid site will now have a playground. Can that be open to neighborhood residents/public? The street has many young children, and that seems like a great asset for everybody to enjoy. The nearest park Hi, I am born & raised here. Own [address removed] and worked for SMPD for 33yr. I took the time to speak to many neighbors and get them to sign the petition. Now I hear that the signatures have you deciding to move homeless to our street?! I raised my kids here and we are a block with many families living and walking to school. We now have a weed store at the top of the alley and all the crazy & drug addicts that get out of UCLA are all over. We can’t handle any more on our street or even near. Please reconsider these choices. We need to make Santa Monica safe and comfortable to leave your home. The police department is so short staffed it can’t handle more. Please listen & forward to the appropriate people to help the people. Thank You Not in our community!!
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) What do you have planned for Parking.
Where are the essential service contractors for the neighborhood going to park ? Also, people visiting the neighborhood.
Plumber
A/C Heating.
Roofers
Electricians.
All the streets in the neighborhood are permit parking and they will need parking.
I would like to get more information about the affordable housing projects proposed for Santa Monica including objectives for tenant population, services to be provided, and architectural characteristics of the proposed projects.
Proposed project is way out of size and character for the Euclid Street location and will cause a parking disaster in the area by the elimination of the SM city parking lot and creation of an oversized living space building with totally inadequate parking.
Are the apartments have washer and dryer inside unit you are building in Santa .
How do you apply for the apartments you are building in Santa Monica. Do you have to go through Santa Monica housing My concern is about the removal of parking, which will negatively impact that already bad business outlook for the area, and the risk for the neighborhood coming from mentally ill individuals attracted to the three developments. Neither of these concerns have been addressed so far.
I am in favor of affordable housing in Santa Monica, but as a nearby resident I am concerned about taking parking lots away from the business on Wilshire Blvd. Parking for those establishments has always been at a premium, and if all these lots are taken away, where will patrons park? These businesses are the lifeblood of our community, and with no parking, they will die.
I am deeply troubled by the city’s housing proposal for 14th, 16th and Euclid buildings in Santa Monica. The city and HCHC have not been transparent about the intended use of these buildings and the safety threats they will introduce to nearby residents. These city-owned properties should be used to the benefit of city residents and tax payers, for example: by investing in affordable daycare centers given the severe lack of childcare options in Santa Monica. It is irresponsible to use taxpayer funds in this manner and without community consent. Furthermore, the height of these buildings is incongruent with neighboring what exactly does affordable mean?
When is the work supposed to start?
What will be the impact on the safety of the neighborhood and the market value of surrounding apartments? Yes. I am concerned about this project being located near residential areas with kids and families. I would like to better understand whether this will be affordable housing for teachers, police officers, fire fighters (=great idea) or for challenged communities (=extremely concerning)
I have a young and growing family and am extremely concerned by having rehab services next door. We have enough problems with homeless people with mental issues in the area. Additionally the entrance to our building will have significant issues if a building goes in on Euclid.
What will security be like if including tri-morbid tenants? What is your plan for ensuring the safety of students going to and from Lincoln?
May try to stop by
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Date:7/8/2024•
To:Santa Monica City Council; Santa Monica City Planners; Hollywood Community Housing; smdemandsafety•[email protected]• From:Concerned Santa Monica Resident of 46 years 1218 14th St. [email protected]• Subject:Planned Development 1217 Euclid / 1211-1217 14th Street • •
I am discussed that the people who were elected to City Council to represent and protect the residents of Santa Monica have failed the hard working people. •
The planning of the above properties has been moving forward for years and due to lack of transparency by City Council and lack of community outreach and input on the project, we find ourselves with a mental institution being built in the middle of a neighborhood of children, dog walkers, shoppers, senior citizens and people who are just trying to get by in life. City Council is shoving this project down our throats. This brings to mind that you are fulfilling a false mandatory request to address Homelessness and mental illness by making decisions that benefit yourselves and if a few residents get hurt in the process, oh well, it is just the price to pay, we know better how to ruin the city better than you. • This building and all other development in Santa Monica is all over 6 stories and will change everyone’s life in the neighborhood. The Mom & Pop business will now be going out of business as there will be NO PARKING, removing 100 public spots and EV Charging stations will kill the neighborhood. No parking =’s no commerce. Patients wanting to park for a UCLA doctor’s appointment now have no options but paying $25.00+ in an office parking structure or get a pricy parking ticket or towed. •
How dare you think the neighbors wants a building that is an out of size /scale building in a quiet neighborhood. How can you think that a 6 story building placed in front of a two story building will not shut out all light and breezes and be replaced with a canonized alley? Where is the quality of life with a mental institution and homeless feeding station in your backyard? Where is the security to protect residents? •
Still the City Council is hiding the intent of the 1217 Euclid property. They waited till the last minute to inform the community of the plans for a tri-morbid (homeless, chronically mentally ill, disabled, violent, drug or ETOH addicted) people who don’t belong in this neighborhood. City Council is hiding that this facility will be a homeless feeding station and homeless resource area. What happened to OPCC and putting this facility near those resources that can leverage each other? Why would you put these sick people near at least two pot shops? Schools? Seniors? Stupid. Why not switch out the 1217 property with the 1211- 1217 property so that, once again, you can leverage the services of UCLA with this new housing plan and resources. • An interesting fact, most of the people who spoke out about these awful plans at the recent City Council meeting were assault Most of the conversation concerning parking has been about the impacts of losing the public lot. Lost in the mix is more conversation about the impact of parking in the neighborhood for residents. No matter what is done to push for use of mass transit, there is going to be an increase of autos from these apartments. This neighborhood is already strained to the max for permit parking because of the constraints caused by Wilshire to the north of the projects and UCLA Hospital to the east. Even with increased usage of mass transit (which we do), there is still a need for a car in LA, especially for families with children (a huge ingredient of the 14th St project). What will entice a resident of these affordable housing projects to lease a spot in the buildings if available rather than just get a $25 permit from the City to park on streets in a 2-block radius already constrained? Housing for formerly homeless people as in HCHC's proposal brings profound safety concerns and does not belong in a residential neighborhood, and especially not on a neighborhood street like Euclid Street. Height and massing of buildings in HCHC's proposal do not respect existing neighbors. Massing should step down to reflect the height of adjacent buildings.
I am a reporter with the Westside Voice covering this meeting for a story Yes I have a lot of concerns about the safety of my elderly parents that just moved in 1 month ago and the value of my property going down. Also the concern of not having any quest parking available if you dont have a permit. I understand the need to help the needy but they should be in a mental health facility outside of the city where they can heal from their traumas and their addictions and slowly get introducted back to sociaty. They are impredictable and dangerous at times and im very scared for the safety of my parents who are very vulnerable. •
Parking problems
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) If the developments have no setback, what’s the plan for the large •cus trees on sight? • Will updates to the development plan be re-presented to the public? • Is there a chance HCHC funding could run out and if so, who becomes responsible to complete the developments? • Will the 3 sites be developed simultaneously or sequentially? If simultaneous, how do you respond to concerns on the impact to the neighborhood with traffic, detours, removal of all business parking at the same time, resource constraints with people, My family of 6 has lived in a one bedroom apartment for over 25 years in Santa Monica and we have applied for housing assistance over the years and have never received any help. How likely is it that we will be able to receive any assistance this time around or what is the process we should follow to ensure possible help? Are the buildings ready to move in or they are going to be billed and haw soon in the future are new construction is going to be happening and how many
1. Create a working group with residents, business owners, and Lincoln Middle School PTA within a .25-mile radius of these developments. •
2. Disclose Schedules and Dates for the Project so the community is fully educated on the process and, most importantly, has the opportunity to participate. This is a public project on public land with public money, and we demand transparency and accountability, •
3. Full disclosure of the ownership and investor structure behind Hollywood Community Housing Corporation. •
4. Please address open lawsuits against HCHC in the Venice project and •nancial audit concerns regarding TPC. •
5. Remove the Supporting Housing from this project. •
6. Keep the number of public parking spots available as is. •
7. Conduct infrastructure, traffic, pedestrian safety, and utilities assessments and adjust building sizes to the level that can be Concerns for security and safety with treatment center. • Crowding the neighborhood with such volume of additional housing brings tra•ic and parking issues. • Euclid Court (alley) traffic and waste management. Alley is 20 feet wide and high traffic already. Dangerous exit onto Wilshire, Arizona not much better. Most residents exit thru the parking lot which would be no more. • I live on 14th Street between Idaho and Washington. I became aware of this development from a flyer handed out by neighbors opposing the locations of the buildings, in particular the one on 14th. I find the NIMBY-ism and accompanying scare tactics being used by the opposition to be disappointing to say the least and hope that the loudest voices do not win the day.
Absolutely. Very concerned. This will negatively affect the quality of life in the neighbourhood. The proposed structure will not fit the overall concept of the surroundings and will dominate other buildings. The biggest issue is that will present a safety issue for the residents. It will be conflicting with the interests of nearby businesses. Besides, there is a dispensary next door, how’s this Yes. Did you see the comments at the city council meeting on June 25? SO MANY neighbours incensed about the entire project! So be thankful that my concerns are more modest: if this is a "done deal" regarding "homeless housing", then at a minimum I would insist on (1) much more parking, even 2 spaces for the larger units (2) NO homeless services near us AT ALL (no food, counselling, etc. - that should be downtown or at the People Concern near the freeway, and (3) bring the height down to match the rest of the neighbourhood: 3 stories max!!! Yes. Why was this decided on before the public k ew about it (or if it was, it was very poorly advertised) Is it true that one of the buildings will house homeless individuals who are not fully recovered from mental illness or substance abuse, and that there will be a public window available for anyone to walk in for assistance?
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) (1) I have walked by each of the three proposed building sites on Euclid St., 14th Street and 16th Street. Each of the three now city parking lots were at capacity around noon on a Wednesday. I'm concerned that the Wilshire Blvd businesses immediately in front of the parking lots will suffer from the loss of nearby parking. To that end, wouldn't the upfront expense of including underground parking in the proposed building sites be mitigated by the city pro•ts from future parking fees?• •
(2) In the apartment building where I live, there are six apartments and five garages at the back of the property, which are accessed through the alley. (For reference, the front building is currently under going renovations. ) • •
When all of the apartments were inhabited, not one of the renters used a garage to park their cars. They all parked on the street in front of the property or parallel to the garage doors in the alley. My question is, is there any way to require the property owners to assign a garage to at least five of their renters? The rental agreement clearly states that *renters* are required to use the garages only for vehicle parking, rather than for storage or other uses. The agreement doesn't say anything about it being okay for the property owners to rent out the garages to third-parties for storage, which they have done in a few cases. (I have walked past people who were clearing out these storage spaces on at least three separate occasions.) • •
Recently, one of the five garages has been converted to an electric room. Why can't these new meters be mounted on the side of Concern about homeless services being planned. This is unacceptable. Please consider safety of neighborhood. Also concerned about the loss of parking. Please add more parking spaces also for nearby businesses which will lose their parking lots.
How much do I need make in taxes to qualify?
I do not believe the homeless supportive housing should be on Euclid. That lacks common sense. Have you even walked that neighborhood?•
•
The current designs do not take the neighborhood into consideration. They are being proposed to maximize scale and not integrate with the surroundings. The surrounding areas generally feature two to three-story residential buildings. The RFP asks that the design be appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood, which it clearly is not. The proposed designs have the bare minimum setbacks to the much smaller neighboring buildings. This is unacceptable for a city-led project. It is being built like a forprofit developer would build it. The design is ugly. Nothing about the neighborhood is being considered. All you are doing is I attended the presentation portion of the meeting so missed a chance to give positive feedback. I want to say how much I admire the design (especially the passive ventilation!) and the goals of the project. With very best wishes, [name removed] In addition to hearing the Development Team presentation, I'm very interested to hear the City of Santa Monica representatives responsible for the projects.
Can you please share the recording from this meeting? I was not able to attend and am interested in hearing the conversation and outcome.
I support adding Permanent Supportive Housing alongside A•ordable Housing, with on-site sta•. • •
However, I feel there is too much on-site parking, which may increase car use among tenants. This area has incredible transit access and access to current and future protected bike lanes. Providing free parking to tenants would discourage alternative sustainable transportation and encourage car ownership that is a huge financial burden for the low income tenants. It will increase local car trips, thereby worsening livability, air quality, and endangering pedestrians, especially children going to school. Instead, replace parking with additional residential units— Each additional unit offered will radically change the lives of additional Santa Monicans that can reside there. Rather than including parking, focus should shift to supporting transit and I make comments both here and in meetings, and give my contact information but have received no acknowlegement or any response or communications from HCHC or the City. I know I'm not alone in feeling the community is not being heard.
I need the meeting passcode to get in.
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) I appreciate there’s a need for affordable housing but my big concern is that from what I understand these will house mentally ill and potentially drug users. I think this is very dangerous to put in a dense neighborhood with families and children, not to mention 2 blocks from a school. Especially if there are wrap around services which would bring more mentally ill or drug users in on a daily basis. I question whether our citizens are equipped to handle mentally ill and drug users as we see already with the issues we have all over Santa Monica. I believe this will exacerbate the issue.• •
I would ask - have the developers engaged experts in that space to understand the dangers or how to mitigate dangers of locating We need more affordable housing in SM
Concerned about the new planned development on 1217 Euclid Avenue and the negative effects it will have on the community I support more affordable housing in Los Angeles Country, including in Santa Monica. The construction of affordable housing will result in more housing supply (which California has a huge deficit of), reduced rents, and more people living where they work.
Concern for the large old shade trees on Euclid lot and 14th street…in addition to parking, congestion, garbage, overcrowding , construction. It seems like there is more concern for everyone but the people who have worked hard to buy homes and selected this neighborhood for the demographic it has.
I strongly support the inclusion of Permanent Supportive Housing in addition to Affordable Housing, so long as there is robust tenant selection and appropriate on-site sta• to support and monitor. • However, I am concerned there is too much parking provided in the current design, which will encourage more car use by tenants. This is especially true as 100% affordable housing is exempt from AB 1317 (requiring parking charges to be separate from rent), thus these parking spaces would be free to tenants and there would be little incentive to choose other forms of transportation. Ultimately this increases VMT and puts pedestrians (especially kids walking/biking to nearby schools) in more danger of being harmed in traffic collisions-- the biggest cause of childhood fatalities. Additionally, the average cost of car ownership in CA is over $12,000/yr-- a massive financial burden for any qualifying PSH or Low income tenants and thus efforts I'm a 40 year resident of Santa Monica and I've seen a dramatic change during that time in which moderate and lower income people -- ordinary families and people who staff our schools and businesses -- can't afford to live anywhere near our city. (Not to mention our kids and others who have grown up here.) This results in impossible traffic congestion in and out of Santa Monica, stress on working families, and air and noise pollution. We need more local affordable housing that regular people can afford to I want to share my support for the affordable housing that the City is developing on its public parking lots. The more housing we Looking forward to hearing how quickly we can get these desperately needed units online.
Many valued members of our city’s community and workforce are living without secure housing (or no housing at all).
Affordable housing projects like this are crucial to ensuring that we build an inclusive, safe, and livable city for all Santa Monicans.
Housing is a human right. There are many valued members of the Santa Monica community living on the street, in their cars, or jumping from couch-to-couch. If we truly want to make an impact on the homelessness crisis, we need projects like these. Many renters today are just one or two pay checks away from being homeless themselves due to high rent costs. Affordable housing helps to diversity the rental market and diversify our community.
More housing, all over town, 20 years ago please! I spend all my time and money in Santa Monica when I lived in LA from 2022- 2024. I’d prefer to live in SM now but am priced out since there’s 1 home for every 10 people who want to live here.
I'll call in to strongly support the three affordable housing developments planned in Santa Monica.
I’d like to voice my favor for these apartment blocks on unused land. I’d like to see more parking lots converted to housing in future too. I am a resident of a rented apartment on 11th and Wilshire (right by these blocks) and see this as a welcome development for our city and neighbourhood!
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) We desperately need more housing in Santa Monica. I support this plan. The only thing that would make it better is adding more floors!
I already attended the in-person meeting. After attending, I had more concerns than before. How will you GURANTEE the safety of families living there (the proposed housing on 14th) if 30% is going to supportive housing. Why can't it all just be 100% lowincome affordable housing? Is there a requirement that you have to take in mentally ill and those struggling with substance abuse? and why build that so close to Lincoln Middle School? • I plan to attend to support these projects though I have another longstanding commitment to an in person event with UniteHERE from 5-8. I will bring my laptop and try to find somewhere and some time when I can log in and stay for a bit. Will there be a time for questions and testimony of support?
Me gustarÃ-a saber como toman las reglas como saben que son las correctas para las personas que van a necesitar el departamento gracias
I want to share my enthusiastic support for new affordable housing in Santa Monica, as a resident and homeowner in this city.
The housing crisis is one of the most pressing issues facing Santa Monica's leaders. The only way to meaningfully address this crisis is by building new housing, so it's been disheartening to see housing production happening at a snail's pace or not at all in my neighborhood. I also want to see Santa Monica help address the climate crisis by adding new housing in our most walkable and transit-connected neighborhoods. Affordable housing that also meets our sustainability and climate goals are urgently needed.
Support the projects
I’m very excited for this project and want to thank all the people putting in the work to make it happen! Will you develop and re-build alley in the back for Euclid project? Who can live in these new apartments?
Thank you! We desperately need more affordable housing. Please don't be discouraged by a small but very vocal minority of complainers.
How can you be positive that the background check companies, such as Rentgrow are aligned with your same values and lense for equity? Who will fill this housing? What does this housing offer that other affordable housing in Santa Monica does not offer? We need the under ground parking to replace the surface parking being eliminated And parking fir the residents AND employees My family has owned the property at 1402 Wilshire Blvd. for over 100 years and in that time it has gotten harder to attract national tenants. The newly installed bus stop in front of our business and the proposal to develop the parking lot behind us will leave us with no parking for our customers and no way to move merchandise into the building. This is irresponsible and short sighted of the city to take all of this public parking away without any plans to replace it. That parking lot no only serves our store but also the hospital and other nearby businesses. It is always full. Our property has always been able to attract national tenants, first Music plus, Blockbuster Video and currently Petco Unleashed. This brought much needed services and tax dollars to the community.
One of my concerns is the potential net change in neighborhood parking. The street parking is already saturated, where is everyone going to park?
What parking alternatives will be provided as a result of building a complex on the current 80 space parking lot on Euclid Street?
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) What are speci•c design features of this building that are customized for our neighborhood? • Does your design include any green space between buildings or for your own residents?• What’s your security plan to keep current residents on the block safe, and to protect children as they walk to Lincoln Middle School (ie is there 24/7 security onsite, how many, where will they be posted)? Does the design feature a gate? • Who will live here, how do they qualify, do they have criminal records or are they registered sex o•enders?• Where will your funding come from, is the plan sustainable or are we going to be stuck with loss of funding within a few years?• Do you prioritize housing for local homeless people, if so, who can we contact to make sure our homeless neighbors are offered services?•
Is there a number we (residents on the same block) can call to contact onsite employees in case of emergency or problems?• What are sta• to resident ratios? What medical professionals will be on site, and during what hours?• Will there be food distribution at that site?
Where will the parking be that is removed by the new structures? Will there be public parking available on site? If not, where will the public parking be? Is the Developer responsible for providing public parking replacing the current parking that will be removed?
Yes, see opposition letter submitted on July 8,2024 to City based on City’s failures to comply with CEQA I mentioned my concerns in my previous message. safety first for my elderly parents I live at [address removed] and I’m in 100% support of all three projects. We NEED affordable housing and we NEED supportive services.
I have a single garage in the building that I use for storage. If parking becomes more difficult, I can rearrange my storage to park my car in the garage. I expect many of my neighbors who will complain about parking have similar parking or driveways available that they choose not to use for parking.
Full disclosure: I’m an architect who previously worked for Kevin Daly and on projects for HCHC, but that is not a factor in my Why isn’t this development closer to the ocean? There’s plenty of space to the west.
Will our taxes go down now that the value of the surrounding homes will be diminished with public housing? Is this project set in stone as of July 8 or is there still votes by the city Council before it is approved? And if there are no votes when was this brought up for community discussion? And where are those notes to be read by people who live in the community.
I hope I can apply for a senior low housing rental ?
I want to apply for a senior low housing rental .
would like to do this virtually
Can you please explain what qualifications will be needed for someone to live here? How long is the minimum lease length?
How will this affect property values in the neighborhood? Can you please give exact addresses of the same type of development built by this developer/architect/service provider? Thank you!
Yes. Did you see the comments at the city council meeting on June 25? SO MANY neighbours incensed about the entire project! So be thankful that my concerns are more modest: if this is a "done deal" regarding "homeless housing", then at a minimum I would insist on (1) much more parking, even 2 spaces for the larger units (2) NO homeless services near us AT ALL (no food, counselling, etc. - that should be downtown or at the People Concern near the freeway, and (3) bring the height down to match the rest of the neighbourhood: 3 stories max!!!
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) There’s a lot of fear surrounding this project, because people are misinformed about what it is really like to have a mental illness. This fear allows the “ othering†of disabled people. Everyone deserves housing, not just people from the dominant culture.
Is this a city or Government plan?
Help us understand the sustainability and climate measures vividly as we welcome potentially new residents with this development.
What attention will there be to neighbors in need of assistance in completing the application to live here? I am supportive of making sure folks omitted from earlier opportunities for affordable housing are duly included.
How many units are affordable? Who gets the priority for these units? Who will handle filling these units? Concern about homeless services being offered in the proposed development. This should be avoided.
Concern about the removal of parking spaces which will negatively impact residents and businesses in the area.
Your voice message reflects meetings that are almost four months ago.Why do you not have any meetings for the upcoming months in July, August?And because the residents in this community have a right to know about these projectshere and there's not a lot of openness about this.
People thought they voted for City Council members to protect the residents of Santa Monica. Mayor Brocks recent comments in the SMDP were shameful. He is rolling over for the BIG developers and is not fighting for our community. He is allowing the unelected, City, State and Federal Bureaucrats to dictate the future of Santa Monica to implement phony, arbitrary regulations to strangle its citizenry.
Mayor Brock noted we need to work with developers to co-exist, just follow our rules. At the recent meeting at St. Anne’s (NOTE:
NO City Council Member attended) where HCHC Architect Kevin Daly felt he was being disrespected by the neighbors attending the meeting. DISREPECTED ARE THE PEOPLE YOU TOLD TO “SHUT UP” AND SWALLOW THESE HORRID PLANS WITH NO COMMUNITY INPUT which started in 2020! You would not allow for general comments, your plan was to split the attendees into small groups so that you can divide and conquer the community. You plan to RUIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR LIVES. You have WEAK, WEAK, WEAK Security plans. Were you really surprised we are outraged no one wants a mental institution with lack security in the once quiet neighborhood? Isn’t it enough the people of Santa Monica have to walk over dozens of homeless people of all kinds within a few block of your home to get to the post office or Vons? I love the fact that the Developers provide plenty of money to the City funds to implement their genius plans. There is no diversity in City Council, you all think a like and you are all benefiting from the destruction and over development of a once beautiful beach city.
HCHC is still confused as they do not have any idea on how to resolve the lack of parking? Have they ever seen the lots completely full on most days? They don’t understand how come there is little use of the parking at night. (Oh what a waste to We, as long term residents on Euclid St., have many concerns as to height of new development, loss of public parking, safety of children in area.
The local businesses in the area rely on the public parking lots for their customers. There are many empty storefronts on Wilshire Blvd. The loss of the public parking lots would create a parking mess!
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) I am disappointed with the lack of transparency from the City of Santa Monica and Hollywood Housing. I never received any notification of these developments in our neighborhood where we live and our kids are students of Santa Monica Malibu School District.
Foremost, our concerns are safety and security. Children are walking to and from school and during the winter months it is not light as long. Our community wants to encourage multi mobility options so that needs to apply to these new residents and at the same time assists our students safety in walking and biking to school. It is better that those who are mentally disabled have housing, but it needs to be appropriate housing that supports their needs so the neighbors will not have to endure the lapses.
Below are some specific suggestions that not only address safety, but parking congestion in the neighborhood that already is impacted by UCLA's Hospital at Wilshire and 15th.
1) Having only 10 parking spots for 20 apartments on 16th and Wilshire is inadequate. I believe it will impact our businesses as well as our residential parking. Other upscale cities have implemented parking permit bans to developments that do not provide sufficient parking. We understand that the state has mandated that cities cannot require parking for certain housing applications but that does not mean the whole neighborhood should bear the burden. Let's encourage these residents to use other forms of mobility - biking, walking, public transit and shared rides. 2) Why did the City of Santa Monica inform the state they are going to exceed the prescribed increase in housing units? This burden is being bared by all those who moved to Santa Monica because it was an oasis in Los Angeles County. Where is the green space going to be to support all these families in multi residential units. The schools are not always open to the public because the schools are trying to gain much needed revenue. So that leaves the airport that many developers are targeting for more housing. The citizens of Santa Monica deserve to understand the comprehensive plan to accommodate all these new residents so they too can enjoy what makes Santa Monica special. 3) What are we doing to protect an active business community? All these residents will need services but if the businesses do not feel safe they will move out. Apparently, Phillz Coffee left because of how exposed they felt to the mentally ill and unhoused.
We hear more businesses are leaving as well for these reasons. 4)In addition, we have two new marijuana shops in the this neighborhood where you are trying to put housing to support the To whom this may concern,
It is inconceivable what all the development that is already in process will do to life in SM. Not to mention ALL the development that hadn’t even started. We’ve all heard that the “demand for new housing” is per the state of CA, but really, what infrastructure do you require the developers to create? What green spaces are you creating and not just for the tenants of an 8 story building.
The streets are already impacted and the new VONS on Lincoln won’t even be built for another while! Why don’t you focus on dealing with the more aggressive unhoused people, loss of business and tourism in response to crime, greedy commercial realtors, ground squirrel over population and the security of the already existing residents before green lighting more Why are you taking a lovely, nice family neighborhood and trying to turn it into a potential slum? And what is the advantage in making my property value diminish?
Please keep your hands off my condo and leave us alone. There are plenty of other sites you could trash, so go trash them and go away.
The degree to which Santa Monica is allowing building is at this point irresponsible. I have no idea how we will keep up with water demands in drought years. The already congested roads are in poor shape and there seems to be no interest in creating green space around the new buildings. Lincoln boulevard is a concrete, hot, uninviting mess. It’s a very sad state of affairs and in hindsight I think the decisions being made now will not be viewed as good, rather as very destructive to our community.
Hi, I'm hoping that you respond to e-mails, but I'm a little bit concerned that this istotally outdated recording information on this
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Dear Hollywood Community Housing Corporation,
Where can I find recordings (video, audio, or written) of the concerns of the residents neighboring the properties to be developed at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211 - 1217 14th Street, and 1146 16th Street in Santa Monica.
I would like to review comments made by both those that are supportive of these projects, as well as comments made by people with questions and concerns.
"Yes, my name is [name removed]. I'm very much interested in your project and I am at Zoom today.Apparently there was a Zoom meeting and I cannot, I don't have an access codemeeting ID so it's not provided so I'm not able to connect I wonder if anypossibility of you know in person meeting [number removed].I appreciate the call back and the email [name removed] thank Comments on proposal to eliminate parking at 1217 Euclid Street to be added to the record please Please add this to the file of public comments on the proposal to develop the city-owned parking lot at 1217 Euclid Street.
Good afternoon. My name is[name removed]. I have a question about the meeting. And canyou please give me a call at [number removed]? I left a couple messages. Nobody called me.Again, [number removed]. My name is [name removed]. Thank you and have a nice day. Bye-bye.
Hello, my name is [name removed] and I wanted to know about how one would go about applyingfor for housing with theHollywoodCommunity housing how one would go about doing thatIf anyone could I live in Los AngelesI'm 65 and I'm disabled.
Anyway, if anyone could give me a jingle back. My number is 929All right, thank you so much.
SHUT DOWN PLANS FOR PROPERTIES 1217 Euclid and 1211-1217th street Please listen to the residents of Santa Monica, we fear for our safety
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Date:6/30/2024
To:Santa Monica City Council; Santa Monica City Planners; Hollywood Community Housing; smdemandsafety•[email protected] From:Concerned Santa Monica Resident of 46 years [name removed] Subject:Planned Development 1217 Euclid / 1211-1217 14th Street I am discussed that the people who were elected to City Council to represent and protect the residents of Santa Monica have failed the hard working people.
The planning of the above properties has been moving forward for years and due to lack of transparency by City Council and lack of community outreach and input on the project, we find ourselves with a mental institution being built in the middle of a neighborhood of children, dog walkers, shoppers, senior citizens and people who are just trying to get by in life. City Council is shoving this project down our throats. Do payoffs come to mind? This building will change everyone’s life in the neighborhood. The Mom & Pop business will now be going out of business as there will be NO PARKING, removing 100 public spots and EV Charging stations will kill the neighborhood. No parking =’s no commerce. Patients wanting to park for a UCLA doctor’s appointment now have no options but paying $25.00+ in an office parking structure or get a pricy parking ticket.
How dare you think the neighbors wants a building that is an out of size /scale building in a quiet neighborhood. How can you think that a 6 story building placed in front of a two story building will not shut out all light and breezes and be replaced with a canonized alley. Where is my quality of life?
Still the City Council is hiding the intent of the 1217 Euclid property. They waited till the last minute to inform the community of the plans for a tri-morbid (homeless, chronically mentally ill, disabled, violent, drug or ETOH addicted) people who don’t belong in this neighborhood. City Council is hiding that this facility will be a homeless feeding station and homeless resource area.
What happened to OPCC and putting this facility near those resources that can leverage each other? Why would you put these sick people near at least two pot shops? Schools? Seniors? Stupid. Why not switch out the 1217 property with the 1211-1217 property so that, once again, you can leverage the services of UCLA with this new housing plan and resources. I am degusted with the plans for the above properties.
What are you thinking? This is the worst idea you have ever made. How do you expect any citizen of Santa Monica to approve of this lunacy?
There is no other place in the city that has this type housing. Who would put up and house chronically mentally ill people near a school, up ending the whole safety of the neighborhood.
Is it not enough that every time you walk in Santa Monica you are subject to running into many homeless mental ill people walking in the streets and threatening your quality of life and your physical threatening your life in general. This plan is out of scope for this neighborhood.
The Architects are confused, "they are sensitive to shade" , that is nice you considered the shade issue, but you can't put up a 6 story building in front of a 2 story building, you have SHADE not only shade but the canonization of the alley, there will never be any sun or breezes, just more darkness and homelessness.
Regarding lack of parking, you are removing more than 100 city metered parking spots. How dare you, again your planners "don't understand the parking needs" WHAT???? Have you asked anyone who parks in the open lot, what are you here and if you take away this parking where would you park, NO WHERE, there are not enough street meters, there are not enough preferential parking, you will ruin the whole neighborhood business and just plan piss off everyone trying to park their car. Will you be forcing people to pay $25.00++ in near by office buildings...NO....
Also, why would you put the mental institution in a residential neighborhood? Why would you not put the 1217 property backed
11.A.m
Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: M. Comments Submitted to HCHC June 24-July 25, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Comments Submitted to HCHC – October 9 – October 31, 2024
1. This project should not proceed due to significant concerns regarding parking and safety. The parking study conducted for this project took place during COVID-19, a time when parking demand was unusually low, which skews the results and does not reflect typical conditions.
Furthermore, the proposed development violates the established building height variance, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our community. In addition, Santa Monica has exceeded its requirement to build low-income housing, raising further concerns about overcrowding and the strain on our limited space. These issues must be addressed to ensure the well-being of our neighborhood and its residents.
2. Super concerned, already shared my concerns many times.
3. I have already accumulated many parking violation tickets because there were several times I couldn’t find parking during street cleaning days. Usually, I find parking on the side where I have to move my car by a certain time, but I forget to do it. So, if we have a six-story building on both Euclid and 14th Street without an underground parking structure, how will you mitigate the already existing parking problem on the street?
4. Are the affordable units to be filled by section 8 tenants only? If not, what percent of them will be Section 8. What is minimum income level for non-Section 8 tenants who will pay full rent themselves?
5. I understand that HCHC secured a deal to purchase the Unleashed building. How will the transaction be funded? Please share the sources of funding.
6. I am opposed to building the proposed Projects on the parking lots on Euclid St. and 14th St.
7. At the start, please update the current status of the Project plan... How many units, in how many buildings, and what will the tenant make-up look like... how many Santa Monica seniors? How man PSH tenants? Are any known drug users? How many Santa Monica seniors are currently on the city wait list for housing?
8. This is sad that our City Council and the Developers will NOT FACE THE CITZENS of Santa Monica IN PERSON. How easy is it for you to hide and continue to lie and manipulate the people of Santa Monica. You have not integrated any of the ideas the neighbors had suggested in regards to the massive changes that will happen to our neighborhood. I hope you're happy now that you have put the Pet Store out of business, nice job, putting stores out of business. You have not addressed the LACK OF PUBLIC PARKING. Oh we will figure it out,..no we wont there are not enough parking period. You have not changed your plans to BUILD A SMALLER FOOT PRINT where a 6 story building is out of scope in a 4 story environment. Cut the number of stories so all the people who have lived before this mega building is put up so that we can share the light and cool breezes. 6 stories destroys the quality of life for anyone living east of the building in the alley. Please stop irresponsible BIG development. We want the nice Santa Monica which everyone loved, not this deal with the devil to put up bigger and bigger development so that you can collect your environment awards and check off the box that you have achieved an arbitrary Federal, State and Local development goals which is destroying the fabric and culture of the city.
9. Stop saturating santa monica with housing for homeless who probably won't want to live in these buidlings anyway.
10. During one of the last meetings in July, I requested a copy of the "house rules" to which residents of all sites agree. Representatives said they would get this information to us. Could you please send us the information requested?
11. You’ve removed the underground parking on 14th, likely to cut costs, which now leaves 38% of the residents in your proposal without parking. Despite the city’s request, you had the opportunity to allocate some parking for public use but chose to reduce it to save money.
11.A.n
Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: N. Comments Submitted to HCHC - October 9 - October 31, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Additionally, you’re proposing 100% at-grade parking, which creates dead space on the ground level, further detracting from the neighborhood’s character. Many people in the community feel that these decisions are not aligned with the neighborhood’s best interests.
12. How will you work with the City of Santa Monica to ensure normalcy for residents who do not get the case management that other residents do?
13. We believe the City has used bond financing for public parking in the past, and the property we've identified is the Wilshire House located at 1125 3rd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90403. We have requested public records to be able to provide you with information regarding how it was done. We're wondering if we can begin to integrate into the project bond financing to preserve commercial parking on grade at the 1217 Euclid Street location.
14. Please replace all the existing parking spaces affected by the three developments. Currently many stores on Wilshire are closed, but once new ones open, those parking spots will be much needed. Also, I am very concerned by the planned permanent supportive housing units. Please reconsider their deployment.
15. As an owner within the 750 foot line I have received absolutly no information about this proposed boondogle of a project. Your deception on the process is one for the recordbooks.
When was the town vote? When were the concerns addressed at the last meeting? THey weren't. You muted our questions or gavre BS answers. You're not even truthfl about who can move in based on your admitance at othr projects you have done. Be transparent please.
16. I am very worried about how this will affect home prices in area, if this will increase crime rates, parking and traffic, increase issues in neighborhood
17. Does the team have a plan for possible implementation of AB 2479?
18. May I see the projects proposals? Are we talking about affordable housing buildings, or instead some affordable units in a market rate development.
19. How will the businesses on Wilshire survive when their customers can no longer find parking? Where will the new tenants’ visitors park? Where will my visitors park? More parking spaces need to be added to the plans.
20. What is the height and density of these projects.
21. How will security be affected by these buildings?
22. I am concerned about the destruction of the trees and palms at the current sites. They have been there for decades. I am concerned about the loss of parking spots
23. I have heard discussion of the possibility of the city buying the building at 1405 Wilshire Blvd.
Please explain how the progress on this purchase is going and how such purchase, if completed, would figure into the housing projects.
24. Will representatives from the City of Santa Monica Housing &/or Planning be included at the meeting to do their best to help create a community-caring (aka civil & respectful) meeting…? As I ask the question, I share my opinion that it may be a good idea for you to request the most appropriate SAMO department have a skilled caring representative as the "MC" or moderator ("umpire") for the meeting. You are welcome to call me if you want to hear my opinion as to why I think this would be a good idea . . . and I'd be very interested to hear if you do make such a request and you get turned down. (Confidential, of course)
25. How can I apply
26. Please share how the neighborhood will be affected by construction. Please address impact of parking on neighborhood street parking. Address priority of applicants for Sr affordable housing.
Also how the Petco building is being financed and will this be Sr affordable housing in perpetuity.
27. Parking for the community
11.A.n
Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: N. Comments Submitted to HCHC - October 9 - October 31, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
28. I am against this idea. One of the parking lots is used for my employees to park and there is no street parking
29. Will the People Concern assure the residents are **drug-free** while living at these locations?
30. Hello, how do you anticipate the Euclid site development to affect neighboring residential buildings and businesses. Most specifically, I am referring to the residents of 1227 Euclid? Furthemore, are there ramifications for the multiple retail businesses on the south side of Wilshire from Euclid to the alley? And how will noise, dirt, and traffic from construction be mitigated?
31. Although Inwas late and missed the formal tour, HCHC on-site staff kindly gave me an informal tour. Nice design -/ both in terms of aesthetics and functionality. Looking forward to getting the Santa Monica housing project built and serving people! Thanks again for the impromptu tour!!
32. I participated in the Oct. 23 meeting. The People Concern rep said that formerly homeless persons would be screened and would be subject to eviction if they engaged in illegal activity such as illegal drug use or sales. This seems weak given the high rates of illegal drug use in the homeless population and their likely visitors. What is the enforcement mechanism? I suggest an additional lease requirement, namely, agreement to random drug testing. Just as in a sober living facility, residents should be subject to eviction if they test positive for illegal drugs. Please convey this to The People Concern. I would like a reply. Thank you.
33. I have already accumulated many parking violation tickets because there were several times I couldn’t find parking during street cleaning days. Usually, I find parking on the side where I have to move my car by a certain time, but I forget to do it. So if we have a six story building on both Euclid and !4th St without underground parking structure, how will you mitigate already an existing parking problem on the streets?
34. I would like another in-person meeting on this terrible housing development you propose in Santa Monica. Not another Zoom meeting where you disregard the questions and comments of the attendees. When will another in person meeting occur? You don't get to ram a development down out throats because some people cannot afford to live in the community.
Why don't you build one in Beverly Hills, Bel Air or the Palisades. Then come to Santa Monica. I look forward to your response for the in-person town meeting time and date. Thank you.
35. Hello, how do you anticipate the Euclid site development to affect neighboring residential buildings and businesses. Most specifically, I am referring to the residents of 1227 Euclid? Furthemore, are there ramifications for the multiple retail businesses on the south side of Wilshire from Euclid to the alley? And how will noise, dirt, and traffic from construction be mitigated?
36. I just found out that the city is trying to bring in housing for the unhoused a block away from my small business, removing the parking that I so desperately need to run my business that is family owned for over 40 years. Putting in housing for drug addicts in a residential and small businesses area is beyond ridiculous, and unsafe for anyone living in the neighborhood. As a small business owner, I have people breaking into my building, pee and pooping everywhere, stealing and frightening most of my customers away. This will only make it 100 times worse. You can't put a building filled with addicts and not have service for them. And giving them needles and Narcan does not count. My son lives close to this site. He is a nurse for the LA County jail system. He deals with these people on a daily basis and the last thing he wants is to come home and see more of them roaming the streets. Why put a place like this on historic Wilshire blvd? Santa Monica is suffering, people are leaving with all the crime and you will make it worse. I DO NOT WANT THIS BUILDING SITE !!!!!! Please let my voice be heard. [name removed], long time resident of Santa Monicia
11.A.n
Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: N. Comments Submitted to HCHC - October 9 - October 31, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
37. I hope the people on the City Council are happy, you were voted in to protect the citizens and the city from reckless over development. You cared more about fulfilling an arbitrary housing mandate from the federal, state and city government and somehow managed to line your city pockets from developers. You will have changed the character of a once nice neighborhood.
Just because your Zoom meeting was not well resented by the neighborhood does not reflect the contempt we have toward you as you are still not listening to the people who will be affected by your bad decisions. The parking math does not add up. If you take way over 100 parking spots and you add over 100 people to the neighborhood, how does that help anyone? It does not help it hurts as now it will be even a worse nightmare to find parking. Local business will be forced to go out of business, or be forced out of business like you did to Petco Critical concern is the lack of Security at the now "senior facility" you changed the people from trimorbid to homeless seniors, the behavior of those people are the same. What happens when the security contract ends? People don’t feel safe in Santa Monica and have been assaulted at some point living here. Thanks again for adding to the problems. The height of the Euclid facility is TOO TALL. This is a community of 2-4 story buildings. This over size building is dropped into a space which will dwarf the existing buildings. The resident’s quality of life will now be full of cold dark shade, no breezes, just darkness. It’s a shame you can’t chop off 2 floors and make existing residents happy too. Go and collect your self-awarded proclamations and awards for your genius as you know so much more than the people who live in the city. I won’t be voting for any of you.
38. Neither of these projects are well-suited for the locations or the residents of Santa Monica. As a local business owner, the impact of either building would be detrimental to my customers and residents. Removing parking in an already difficult area to park is thoughtless. And neither of the buildings are going to have any suitable staffing or security - for the residents of the structure or the neighborhood. 40 hours of training to deal with the unhoused and addicted persons? My son is a nurse with years of training and experience, and this is ridiculously insufficient. And when our city is already losing its appeal to visitors and businesses, turning parts of historic Wilshire into such an obvious extension of blight almost seems calculated to harm the city. It's not NIMBY to suggest that putting this site in a location without such a terrible impact upon other residents and businesses somewhere else is simply the right thing to do.
39. I just found out that the city is trying to bring in housing for the unhoused a block away from my small business, removing the parking that I so desperately need to run my business that is family owned for over 40 years. Putting in housing for drug addicts in a residential and small businesses area is beyond ridiculous, and unsafe for anyone living in the neighborhood. As a small business owner, I have people breaking into my building, pee and pooping everywhere, stealing and frightening most of my customers away. This will only make it 100 times worse. You can't put a building filled with addicts and not have service for them. And giving them needles and Narcan does not count, nor does only 40 hours of training to the employee. My son lives close to this site. He is a nurse for the LA County jail system. He deals with these people on a daily basis and the last thing he wants is to come home and see more of them roaming the streets. Why put a place like this on historic Wilshire blvd? Santa Monica is suffering, people are leaving with all the crime and you will make it worse. I DO NOT WANT THIS BUILDING SITE !!!!!! Please let my voice be heard. [name removed], long time resident of Santa Monicia
40. My family and I are small business owners and have been for over 50 years in Santa Monica.
This proposed building of affordable housing at Euclid and 14th Streets and Wilshire would greatly impact our small business and the surrounding neighborhood as a whole. It would greatly affect the limited parking. This would also affect tenants living in the surrounding apartments and small business owners on and near these streets. The unhoused/homeless
11.A.n
Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: N. Comments Submitted to HCHC - October 9 - October 31, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) individuals are already greatly affecting local residents and encouraging them to leave these once previously very peaceful streets. We must do all we can to protect these streets and neighborhoods and not bring in any additional building that would negatively affect the quality of life that local residents wish to maintain.
41. Good morning, Thank you for the informative zoom meeting last evening. Can you please clarify what the anticipated timeline is for the Santa Monica Project, in terms of both start and completion dates for the new residential buildings? Thanks, [name removed]
42. Dear HCHC, I am finding that there is another virtual meeting for a Metro affordable housing project, also in my general neighborhood, scheduled to start about half an hour after your meeting does on Wednesday, October 23, 2024. For this reason, I am wondering if HCHC will be recording tomorrow's virtual meeting regarding the affordable housing projects for Euclid Street and 14th Street, just off of Wilshire Blvd? Thank you for your time and consideration in this regard. Sincerely, [name removed].
43. Please send a link on October 21 or 22.
11.A.n
Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: N. Comments Submitted to HCHC - October 9 - October 31, 2024 (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
1217 EUCLID STREET AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
Topic/Item Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) Deal Points Parties Lessor: City of Santa Monica (“City”);
Lessee: Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, (“Developer”) or a limited partnership controlled by the Developer;
Collectively: (“Parties”);
Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) and Ground Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) Development Site The development site is comprised of approximately 15,000 square feet, between Arizona Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, located at 1217 Euclid Street in Santa Monica, CA 90404.
The proposed development is 48 units total, with 47 affordable rental apartments with 5 apartments reserved for 30% AMI households, 17 apartments reserved for 40% AMI households, 25 apartments reserved for 60% households, and 1 three-bedroom manager apartment without income restrictions. Government funding regulations and requirements may change, thus necessitating adjustments to the unit mix and AMI levels to maintain competitiveness for said funding. City staff shall reasonably approve changes to the unit mix and/or AMI levels to ensure competitiveness for government funding sources. All units except the manager’s unit shall be reserved for households with an average household income of 60% AMI or less.
The current proposed unit mix shall be as follows: 21 one-bedrooms, 14 two-bedrooms, and 13 three-bedrooms.
The building will have the following amenities: Community room with kitchenette; bike storage room; community laundry; playground; planted roof terrace; large package room; and on-site offices for management staff. Utilization of the bike storage facility will be provided at no additional cost to the residents.
There will be some parking at grade and one floor of underground parking for a total of 40 vehicle spaces reserved for residents and on-site staff. The number of parking spaces could change due to design and building code requirements. City Manager is authorized to approve up to 10% change in the amount of parking spaces due to site constraints. Parking will be provided at no additional cost to residents.
11.A.o
Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: O. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet Euclid [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
The development includes approximately 1,725 square feet of ground floor space for ancillary use for property management, resident services and resident common areas. The affordable housing, together with the ground floor uses and one level of underground parking, are herein referred to as the “Development”.
Good Faith Negotiation In case of any dispute arising from this Agreement, including any question regarding its interpretation, validity, or termination, Parties will use best efforts to resolve the dispute by good faith negotiation.
Local Entitlements The Parties understand and agree that the Developer is eligible to apply for a local streamlined ministerial approval process and is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The residential and ancillary uses are permitted by right.
Ground Lease Term The City will provide a ground lease term of 55 years plus two options of 22 years each, the options may be elected by the Developer and City after mutual agreement subject to tax credit financing requirements, provided that Developer is not in default under the terms of the ground lease. The term of the ground lease will commence upon concurrent closing of escrow for financing the development, as more fully specified in the DDA. The Ground Lease Agreement and Regulatory Agreement shall include cross-default provisions.
Ground Lease
Rent
Annual rent for 55 years is $1 plus City’s pro rata share of residual receipts based on the amount of public funding provided by each public lender with the City’s contribution being calculated based on the fair market value of the development site at construction loan closing (“FMV”), which shall be determined by an appraisal mutually agreed upon by the City and Developer in accordance with TCAC requirements. At Year 56, assuming extension of the lease is exercised, rent will be equivalent to City’s share of residual receipts. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the aggregate rent actually paid to the City during the term of the ground lease shall not exceed the FMV.
City Housing Trust Funds
Loan
If a funding gap should occur, City staff may approve HTF loans that comply with the underwriting criteria and loan limits within the City’s HTF Guidelines. Any request outside of these limits will be brought before City Council for approval. Developer/City to execute Housing Trust Funds Loan in the approximate amount of $11,000,000, which shall be secured by a deed of trust in favor of the City. Repayment of the loan shall be paid after payment in full of the Developer Fee, assuming both Parties agree to the Developer Fee. Repayment of the loan shall be paid from the City’s share of residual receipts after payment of the Ground Lease Rent. The loan term shall be 57 years from construction closing unless there is an early termination without construction closing.
City Regulatory Agreement The initial term of the City Regulatory Agreement will be 55 years from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy, be extended concurrently with each option to extend the Ground Lease Term. There shall be no subordination of City
11.A.o
Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: O. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet Euclid [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
Regulatory Agreement to other financing sources during the lease period and any extension thereto. The Regulatory Agreement shall reference the following:
1. Form of Tenant Lease
2. House Rules
3. Services Plan
4. Security Plan
5. List of Amenities
6. Tenant Selection Plan
7. Property Management Plan
Predevelopment Expenses All predevelopment expenses will be paid by Developer.
Non-City Development
Funding
Developer is required to obtain outside financing necessary to fully fund the Development, which includes a permanent bank loan, a construction loan, State and/or Federal tax credit equity, and any other funding the Developer deems necessary to achieve project feasibility.
The City will have approval rights to any loan documents or grant agreements with non-City development funders.
Developer Fee Developer to receive a maximum developer fee for the Development. The fee, including any deferred developer fee, will be subject to either the fee limit in the Santa Monica Housing Trust Fund Guidelines at the time of closing or a negotiated fee based on third-party review, up to the maximum allowable developer fee per CA LIHTC regulations at time of closing.
General Partner Asset
Management Fee
Developer’s maximum yearly general partner asset management fee will be capped as follows: $25,000, inflated annually at 3.5%.
Limited Partner Asset
Management Fee
Developer’s maximum yearly investor asset management fee will be capped as follows: $10,000, inflated annually at
3.5%.
Construction Bids The Developer will comply with City requirements regarding prevailing wage. Developer will provide the City with a list of subcontractors and conduct prevailing wage compliance review. Developer agrees to require a General Contractor to obtain most competitive pricing, terms and conditions, consisting of at least three subcontractor bids from the major trades.
11.A.o
Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: O. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet Euclid [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
Permanent Debt and Tax
Credit Equity
Developer agrees to hold a solicitation process for lenders and investors to obtain most competitive pricing, terms and conditions.
Financing Plan
Modifications
As changes are made during the predevelopment phase and prior to Development Closing, Developer shall submit to City for review updated versions of the Financing Plan reflecting any and all changes from prior versions submitted to the City. City and Developer shall jointly approve changes to the Financing Plan through construction loan closing.
Developer and City will meet and confer if costs increase to create a funding gap. If the funding gap cannot be closed within 24 months from execution of the DDA, the City will have the right to terminate the Agreement or provide an extension to be negotiated. City can terminate the Agreement for cause if Developer is in default of the DDA (subject to all applicable notice and cure provisions of the DDA).
Assignment of Contracts
and Plans
The City shall require the Developer to assign land use entitlements, plans, and contracts. This assignment shall survive termination of the DDA; provided however, in the event the City elects to terminate the DDA as a result of a funding gap and Developer is not otherwise in default or owe the City any Housing Trust Fund loan, at the City’s request, the Developer shall assign, on an as is basis without any representation or warranty, all of its right, title and interest in any land use entitlements, plans, and contracts developed in connection with the Project (the “Work Product”) upon the City’s agreement to reimburse the Developer for the demonstrated third party out of pocket expenses incurred by Developer and its affiliates in connection with the Work Product.
City Approval Rights City shall have approval rights, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, over the following:
a. Key members of the development team, including the General Contractor b. Property Management team, Property Management Plan, Lease, Tenant Selection Plan, House Rules, Housing Retention Process, Security Plan
c. Service Provider Team and Services Plan
d. Key documents, including but not limited to the Limited Partnership Agreement and Construction Contract e. The Development’s development budget and annual operating budget f. Withdrawals from the operating and replacement reserves, consistent with the requirements of the lender/investor. g. Transfer or sale of leasehold interest, and refinancing, consistent with the requirements of the lender/investor h. Transfer of general partner, or managing general partner interest and all associated transfer documents i. Partnership and financing documents
Transfer or Assignment Developer agrees to City approval rights over General Partner transfer or assignment that are industry standard for tax credit financed developments.
11.A.o
Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: O. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet Euclid [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
Tenant Selection Subject to federal and state fair housing laws, the Development must utilize the City’s Below Market Housing waitlist to fill affordable apartments.
Security The City shall approve the Security Plan as part of the Regulatory Agreement. Developer is required to provide security in accordance with the Security Plan. If the City believes that the Security Plan is insufficient, the City can request a meet and confer with the Developer to reassess the Security Plan. The Security Plan shall include at a minimum:
• Security staff during construction
• Controlled access points
• Perimeter security fencing
• Key fob access and automatic locking
• Alarm system
• Security cameras with an on-site monitoring system at the property management office Building sustainability • Developments will meet Santa Monica Energy Performance Requirements as defined by the Energy Performance Approach Reach Code.
• Developments will meet Santa Monica's Electric Vehicle Charger Reach Code and provide secure bicycle parking on-site to encourage alternate mobility options
• Developments will be solar-ready, with infrastructure in place to serve photovoltaic arrays when funding is available.
• Developments will utilize drought-tolerant planting.
• Natural ventilation - while each unit will be equipped with air conditioning, units are planned with operable windows to maximize natural ventilation and reduce A/C demand • Site orientation and self-shading - windows are placed to maximize natural daylight within units and windows facing south and west are self-shaded with architectural elements to reduce heat gain • Planted roof areas and podiums to mitigate urban heat island effect • Shaded, open-air common areas
DDA Upon approval of the Term Sheet by the City Council, Developer and City staff will negotiate a DDA\containing all terms and conditions of the transaction for approval by the City Council. The City Council reserves the right to reject the recommended DDA.
11.A.o
Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: O. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet Euclid [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Page
6 of 6
The DDA will include, at a minimum:
1. Legal Description
2. Site Map
3. Scope of Development
4. Schedule of Development
5. Development Budget
6. Pro Forma Sources and Uses (Financing Plan)
7. Form of Regulatory Agreement
8. Form of Ground Lease
9. Memo of Ground Lease
10. Form of Assignment of Contracts and Plans
11. Assignment of Agreements
11.A.o
Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: O. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet Euclid [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
1211-1217 FOURTEENTH STREET AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
Topic/Item Disposition and Development (DDA) Deal Points Parties Lessor: City of Santa Monica (“City”);
Lessee: Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, (“Developer”) or a limited partnership controlled by the Developer; Collectively: (“Parties”);
Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) and Ground Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) Development Site The development site is a total of approximately 25,000 square feet and is comprised of:
• 15,000 square feet, between Arizona Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, located at 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street in Santa Monica, CA 90404 (“City Site”); and
• 10,018 square feet, between Arizona Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, located at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica, CA 90403 (“1402 Wilshire Boulevard”)
The proposed development will be 82 units total, with 80 affordable rental apartments with 40 apartments reserved for 30% AMI households and 40 apartments reserved for 60% AMI households, plus 2 manager apartments without income restrictions. 40 of the apartments will be reserved as permanent supportive housing (PSH) with Project-Based Section 8 from the City’s Housing Authority. All apartments, with the exception of the 2 manager apartments, will be reserved for seniors where the head of household must be aged 55 years and older. Government funding regulations and requirements may change, thus necessitating adjustments to the unit mix and AMI levels to maintain competitiveness for said funding. City staff shall reasonably approve changes to the unit mix and/or AMI levels to ensure competitiveness for government funding sources. All units except the two manager apartments shall be reserved for households with an average household income of 60% AMI or less.
The current proposed unit mix shall be as follows: 80 one-bedrooms and 2 two-bedroom property management units.
The building will have the following amenities: Community room with kitchenette; bike room; community laundry rooms; planted roof terraces; on-site supportive services offices and conference room; on-site offices for management staff; staff breakout room and kitchenette; large package room. Utilization of the bike storage facility will be provided at no additional cost to the residents. PSH apartments will be furnished and include: (1) full-size bed with frame, (1) Dresser, (1) Dining table with (2) chairs, (1) Sofa, (1) Coffee table, (1) Lamp
11.A.p
Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
There will be at-grade parking with 42 vehicle spaces which will be for the sole use of the residents, on-site staff, and visiting service providers. The number of parking spaces could change due to design and building code requirements. City Manager is authorized to approve up to 10% change in the amount of parking spaces due to site constraints. Parking will be provided at no additional cost to residents.
The development includes approximately 3,657 square feet of ground floor space for ancillary use for property management, resident services and resident common areas. The affordable housing, vehicle parking and ground floor uses, are herein referred to as the “Development.”
Good Faith
Negotiation
In case of any dispute arising from this Agreement, including any question regarding its interpretation, validity, or termination, Parties will use best efforts to resolve the dispute by good faith negotiation.
Property Acquisition Developer is conducting due diligence and plans to acquire 1402 Wilshire Boulevard. Developer will deed 1402 Wilshire Boulevard to the City concurrently with execution of the ground lease for the City Site and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard, with condition of title approved by City. Developer shall clear all liens on 1402 Wilshire Boulevard prior to the deed transfer to the City.
Local Entitlements The Parties understand and agree that the Developer is eligible to apply for a local streamlined ministerial approval process and is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The residential and ancillary uses are permitted by right. 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and the City Site will be subject to a lot tie agreement.
Ground Lease Term The City will provide a ground lease term of 55 years plus two options of 22 years each, the options may be elected by the Developer and City after mutual agreement subject to tax credit financing requirements, provided that Developer is not in default under the terms of the ground lease. The term of the ground lease will commence upon concurrent closing of escrow for financing the development, as more fully specified in the DDA. The Ground Lease Agreement and Regulatory Agreement shall include cross-default provisions.
Ground Lease
Rent
Annual rent for 55 years is $1 for the development site plus City’s pro rata share of residual receipts based on the amount of public funding provided by each public lender with the City’s contribution being calculated based on the fair market leasehold value of the City Site at construction loan closing (“FMV”). FMV of the City Site will be determined by an appraisal mutually agreed upon by the City and Developer in accordance with TCAC requirements. At Year 56, assuming extension of the lease is exercised, rent will be equivalent to City’s share of residual receipts. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the aggregate rent plus any payments actually paid to the City during the term of the ground lease shall not exceed the FMV of the City Site.
11.A.p
Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
City Housing Trust
Funds Loan
If a funding gap should occur, City staff may approve HTF loans that comply with the underwriting criteria and loan limits within the City’s HTF Guidelines. Any request outside of these limits will be brought before City Council for approval. ****************************************************************************************** Developer/City to execute Acquisition Loan for 1402 Wilshire Boulevard in the amount of $6,000,000 (concurrent escrow for purchase and funding the Acquisition Loan), which shall be secured by a deed of trust in favor of the City. A City Deed of Trust/Regulatory Agreement/option agreement shall be recorded at funding of the acquisition loan. In the event of termination of the DDA due to inability to close the financing gap, City shall exercise a purchase option at the amount of the acquisition loan or allow for sale of the property at fair market value with the Regulatory Agreement to be released and repayment of the City’s loan from the proceeds of sale. At construction closing, Developer to convey property to City and City to ground lease back to Developer for partial repayment of City acquisition loan in the approximate amount of $3,500,000 from construction financing, subject to approval of the City Manager of the final amount. Simultaneously with the paydown of the City acquisition loan, the loan term shall be extended to 57 years from construction closing.
Repayment of the remaining balance of the City loan shall be paid from the City’s prorata share of 50% of residual receipts after payment in full of the Developer Fee, assuming both Parties agree to the Developer Fee. The loan term shall be 55 years from construction closing unless there is an early termination without construction closing.
City Regulatory
Agreement
The initial term of the City Regulatory Agreement will be 55 years from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy, to be extended concurrently with each option to extend the Ground Lease Term. There shall be no subordination of City Regulatory Agreement to other financing sources during the lease period and any extension thereto. The Regulatory Agreement shall reference the following:
1. Supportive Services Plan
2. List of Furnishings for PSH apartments
3. PSH Housing Retention Plans used by Developer
4. Form of Tenant Lease
5. House Rules
6. Security Plan
7. List of Amenities
8. Tenant Selection Plan
11.A.p
Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
9. Property Management Plan
Predevelopment
Expenses
All predevelopment expenses will be paid by Developer.
Commercial rental
income
Any rent revenue collected by HCHC from the commercial tenant at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard after HCHC acquisition will be used to pay expenses associated with the commercial use and holding costs if the property is vacant. If rent revenue exceeds such expenses, rent revenue will be used to pay predevelopment expenses for the Development. If expenses exceed rent revenue, the net deficit would be treated as a project expense.
Non-City Development
Funding
Developer is required to obtain outside financing necessary to fully fund the Development, which includes a permanent bank loan, a construction loan, State and/or Federal tax credit equity, a loan from the California Department of Housing and Community Development Multifamily Housing Program, and any other funding the Developer deems necessary to achieve project feasibility.
The City will have approval rights to any loan documents or grant agreements with non-City development funders.
Developer Fee Developer to receive a maximum developer fee for the Development. The fee, including any deferred developer fee, will be subject to either the fee limit in the Santa Monica Housing Trust Fund Guidelines at the time of closing or a negotiated fee based on third-party review, up to the maximum allowable developer fee per CA LIHTC regulations at time of closing.
General Partner Asset
Management Fee
Developer’s maximum yearly general partner asset management fee will be capped as follows: $25,000, inflated annually at 3.5%.
Limited Partner Asset
Management Fee
Developer’s maximum yearly investor asset management fee will be capped as follows: $10,000, inflated annually at 3.5%.
Construction Bids The Developer will comply with City requirements regarding prevailing wage. Developer will provide the City with a list of subcontractors and conduct prevailing wage compliance review. Developer agrees to require a General Contractor to obtain most competitive pricing, terms and conditions, consisting of at least three subcontractors bids from the major trades.
Permanent Debt and
Tax Credit Equity
Developer agrees to hold a solicitation process for lenders and investors to obtain most competitive pricing, terms and conditions.
Financing Plan
Modifications
As changes are made during the predevelopment phase and prior to Development Closing, Developer shall submit to City for review updated versions of the Financing Plan reflecting any and all changes from prior versions submitted to the City.
City and Developer shall jointly approve changes to the Financing Plan through construction loan closing. Developer and
11.A.p
Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
City will meet and confer if costs increase to create a funding gap. If the funding gap cannot be closed within 24 months from execution of the DDA, the City will have the right to terminate the Agreement or provide an extension to be negotiated. City can terminate the Agreement for cause if Developer is in default of the DDA (subject to all applicable notice and cure provisions of the DDA).
Assignment of
Contracts and Plans
The City shall require the Developer to assign land use entitlements, plans, and contracts. This assignment shall survive termination of the DDA; provided however, in the event the City elects to terminate the DDA as a result of a funding gap and Developer is not otherwise in default or owe the City any Housing Trust Fund loan, at the City’s request, the Developer shall assign, on an as is basis without any representation or warranty, all of its right, title and interest in any land use entitlements, plans, and contracts developed in connection with the Project (the “Work Product”) upon the City’s agreement to reimburse the Developer for the demonstrated third party out of pocket expenses incurred by Developer and its affiliates in connection with the Work Product.
City Approval Rights City shall have approval rights, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, over the following:
a. Key members of the development team, including the General Contractor b. Property Management team, Property Management Plan, Lease, Tenant Selection Plan, House Rules, Housing Retention Process, Security Plan
c. Service Provider Team and Services Plan
d. Key documents, including but not limited to the Limited Partnership Agreement and Construction Contract e. The Development’s development budget and annual operating budget f. Withdrawals from the operating and replacement reserves, consistent with the requirements of the lender/investor. g. Transfer or sale of leasehold interest, and refinancing, consistent with the requirements of the lender/investor h. Transfer of general partner, or managing general partner interest and all associated transfer documents i. Partnership and financing documents
Transfer or
Assignment
Developer agrees to City approval rights over General Partner transfer or assignment that are industry standard for tax credit financed developments.
Project-Based
Vouchers
The Santa Monica Housing Authority will provide 40 Project-Based Housing Choice Vouchers for the PSH apartments.
Supportive Services
Funding
The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services will fund supportive services for the 40 PSH apartments estimated at $936,000 per year.
11.A.p
Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
Tenant Selection Subject to federal and state fair housing laws, the Development must utilize a City-administered waitlist – the City’s Below Market Housing waitlist to fill affordable apartments, and the Santa Monica Housing Authority’s waitlist to fill the PSH apartments, which utilizes a coordinated entry system with priority for Santa Monica Program Participant applicants.
Security The City shall approve the Security Plan as part of the Regulatory Agreement. Developer is required to provide security in accordance with the Security Plan. If the City believes that the Security Plan is insufficient, the City can request a meet and confer with the Developer to reassess the Security Plan. The Security Plan shall include at a minimum:
• Methods for securing 1402 Wilshire Boulevard prior to construction • Security staff during construction
• A resident Property Manager will be on duty Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. beginning with move-ins. At the City Site/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site, a second resident Assistant Property Manager will be on duty from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with the shift adjustable as needed. At all times when not on duty, the Property Manager or Assistant Property Manager will be on-call and available by phone for afterhours emergencies. • HCHC will provide security for the first year of operations at the City Site/1402 Wilshire Boulevard site during night and weekend hours when a resident property manager is not on duty, with continuation after the first year subject to reassessment with City staff.
• Controlled access points
• Perimeter security fencing
• Key fob access and automatic locking
• Alarm system
• Security cameras with an on-site monitoring system at the property management office Transportation
Demand Management
Developer and City shall explore the feasibility of measures to reduce personal vehicle usage by tenants of the Development, such as transit passes and shared mobility programs (such as car share, ride share and/or bicycle share).
Building sustainability • Developments will meet Santa Monica Energy Performance Requirements as defined by the Energy Performance Approach Reach Code.
• Developments will meet Santa Monica's Electric Vehicle Charger Reach Code and provide secure bicycle parking onsite to encourage alternate mobility options
11.A.p
Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
• Developments will be solar-ready, with infrastructure in place to serve photovoltaic arrays when funding is available. • Developments will utilize drought-tolerant planting.
• Natural ventilation - while each unit will be equipped with air conditioning, units are planned with operable windows to maximize natural ventilation and reduce A/C demand
• Site orientation and self-shading - windows are placed to maximize natural daylight within units and windows facing south and west are self-shaded with architectural elements to reduce heat gain • Planted roof areas and podiums to mitigate urban heat island effect • Shaded, open-air common areas
DDA Upon approval of the Term Sheet by the City Council, Developer and City staff will negotiate a DDA containing all terms and conditions of the transaction for approval by the City Council. The City Council reserves the right to reject the recommended DDA.
The DDA will include, at a minimum:
1. Legal Description
2. Site Map
3. Scope of Development
4. Schedule of Development
5. Development Budget
6. Pro Forma Sources and Uses (Financing Plan)
7. Form of Regulatory Agreement
8. Form of Ground Lease
9. Memo of Ground Lease
10. Form of Assignment of Contracts and Plans
11. Assignment of Agreements
11.A.p
Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: P. Wilshire DDA Term Sheet 14th [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2024 Parking Study – Surface Lot Replacement Study
PROJECT #37-09887.00
1 Date: October 11, 2024
To: City of Santa Monica
Company: 1685 Main St.
Address: Santa Monica, CA 90401
From: Steffen Turoff, AICP, Beth Mercer
Project Name: 2024 Parking Study – Surface Lot Replacement Study Project Number: 37-09987.00
Introduction
The City of Santa Monica has provisional plans to construct affordable housing on some existing city surface parking lots. If public parking for these locations is to continue to be provided, the city seeks to understand how many spaces would need to be replaced when housing is built on these sites. As part of its citywide parking study, Walker has performed the following analysis of parking demand in the surface lots being considered for development, relying on data from the city’s Smarking platform.
Study Area
The study area encompasses seven parking lots within the City of Santa Monica. The specific city surface lots analyzed, along with their addresses, are as follows: Main Street Lot 9 (110 Hill St, Santa Monica), Main Street Lot 10 (111 Hill Street, Santa Monica), Main Street Lot 11 (170 Hollister Ave, Santa Monica 90401), Mid-City Lot 7 (1217 Euclid St, Santa Monica), Mid-City Lot 8 (1146 16th Street, Santa Monica), Mid-City Lot 12 (1211 14th St, Santa Monica), and Downtown Lot 27 (1320 5th street, Santa Monica, 90401). The accompanying map identifies the locations of these seven lots with red pins.
Figure 1: Santa Monica City Lots
Walker Consultants, 2024
11.A.q
Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Q. Surface Lot Replacement Study (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2024 Parking Study – Surface Lot Replacement Study
PROJECT #37-09887.00
2 Analysis
Walker conducted an analysis to determine the average and 85th percentile parking occupancy over the past two calendar years, 2022 and 2023, to determine how much parking needs will be impacted by the Affordable Housing. The average occupancy and 85th percentile parking occupancy were calculated using data from the city’s online parking data platform, Smarking, for each of the city’s parking lots that will be affected by the future development. These metrics were derived from the peak parking data recorded each day throughout the entire calendar year for both 2022 and 2023. The “85th Percentile” in this case refers to the peak level of occupancy that occurs on this 85th percentile busiest day, a metric that is often used to determine the appropriate parking capacity to provide. Any more parking provided results in spaces sitting empty an unacceptable number of days per year. Any less parking results in an insufficient amount of parking for an unacceptable number of days throughout the year.
The following figures present the parking occupancy analyzed for the past two years in the seven city lots in the Study Area. Most of these lots, with the exception of Downtown Lot 27, experienced an increase in occupancy from 2022 to 2023. The table includes the capacity (inventory) of each lot and the average and 85th percentile number of cars parked, according to Smarking data. For instance, Main Street Lot 9 had an average peak of 126 cars in 2022 and 138 cars in 2023, out of a total of 169 spaces. In 2022, the cars parked within the 85th percentile of occupancy in 2022 was 177, and in 2023, it was 189.
Figure 2: Occupancy Average and 85th Percentile
Walker Consultants, 2024
According to Smarking data, as illustrated in Figure 3 below, the average parking occupancy does not exceed the available capacity for both years 2022 and 2023. This indicates that all parking lots can comfortably accommodate vehicles, with some space remaining.
2022 2023 2022 2023
MS Lot 9 169 126 138 177 189
MS Lot 10 39 33 35 42 46
MS Lot 11 131 62 73 96 106
Mid-City Lot 7 49 15 20 21 28
Mid-City Lot 8 21 16 16 20 21
Mid-City Lot 12 49 37 40 51 53
Downtown Lot 27 93 59 42 95 68
Total 551 348 364 502 511
Occupancy of Santa Monica City Lots
Average 85th
Lot Capacity Percentile
11.A.q
Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Q. Surface Lot Replacement Study (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2024 Parking Study – Surface Lot Replacement Study
PROJECT #37-09887.00
3 Figure 3: Occupancy Percentages Per Lot
Walker Consultants, 2024
The colors in Figure 3 show the occupancy levels for each of the studied parking lots in the area. Occupancies below 50% are green, occupancies between 50-80% are yellow and anything above 80% is red. The 85th percentile parking occupancies appear to primarily be above 80% occupancy. On average, parking spaces are more than 50% full but under 100% full. Where the 85
th percentile exceeds the lot capacity, Smarking is likely assuming a longer parking duration than is actually occurring, as the platform records data based on pay station transactions. We suggest that it is reasonable to assume that the 85th percentile in these cases is approximately equal to the capacity of the lots.
We note that the demand for parking spaces is always a function of cost. The Smarking numbers included here are based on the current parking prices and restrictions.
Conclusion
With the construction of the future affordable housing, the replaced parking may not need to match the current capacity of the existing lots; this is a policy decision that may be impacted by considerations of cost and the availability of land for replacement parking. Structured parking spaces are not only far more expensive than surface spaces to build, they cost far more to maintain over time. The above figures provide a projected average of the number of parking spaces that would need to be constructed to compensate for the loss of parking due to the new developments. An occupancy rate of 85% is the number that we typically use to determine the most common scenario of parking behavior. A best practice for parking planning is to not overbuild, to maintain balance, preventing lots from being too full or too empty. An overly empty lot represents valuable space and resources that could be repurposed, while an overly full lot results in poor levels of service, causing parkers to waste time and energy searching for parking. The Smarking data presented here provides an estimate of how many parkers are filling the spaces in the lots on average and 85th percentile days so that we can have a projected number of spaces needed to be replaced when the housing is built, if the city chooses to do so. 2022 Occ. % 2023 Occ. % 2022 Occ. % 2023 Occ. %
MS Lot 9 169 126 74% 138 81% 177 105% 189 112%
MS Lot 10 39 33 85% 35 91% 42 109% 46 118%
MS Lot 11 131 62 48% 73 55% 96 73% 106 81%
Mid-City Lot 7 49 15 31% 20 41% 21 43% 28 57%
Mid-City Lot 8 21 16 74% 16 75% 20 95% 21 100%
Mid-City Lot 12 49 37 76% 40 82% 51 104% 53 108%
Downtown Lot 27 93 59 64% 42 46% 95 102% 68 73%
Total 551 348 63% 364 66% 502 91% 511 93%
Occupancy of Santa Monica City Lots
Average 85th Percentile Lot Capacity
11.A.q
Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Q. Surface Lot Replacement Study (6695 : Wilshire DDA) SLA0001006
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 21, 2024
Ayala Scott, Senior Development Analyst
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, MS 19
Santa Monica, CA 90401
SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
Dear Ayala Scott:
RE: HCD’s Review of the City of Santa Monica’s Resolution No. 11503 and Supporting Documents Declaring Three Public Parking Lots Located at 1217 Euclid Street (APN 4282-004-900), 1211-1217 14th Street (APNs 4282- 003-900 and 4282-003-901) and 1146 16th Street (APN 4281-005-900) as “Exempt Surplus Land”
Thank you for notifying the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) of the City of Santa Monica’s (City) determination of three public parking lots located at 1217 Euclid Street (APN 4282-004-900), 1211-1217 14th Street (APNs 4282-003-900 and 4282-003-901), and 1146 16th Street (APN 4281-005-900), (collectively, Properties) as “exempt surplus land.”
HCD reviewed the City’s adopted Resolution No. 11503 and supporting documents (Documentation) pursuant to Section 400 of the Surplus Land Act Guidelines. As explained below, HCD finds that the subject Properties qualify as “exempt surplus land” under Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(F)(i).
Analysis
According to the Documentation, the Properties comprise of three noncontiguous public parking lots that total approximately 0.86-acre in size. On June 22, 2023, the City issued a Request for Proposals for the ground lease and development of the Properties with 130 affordable housing units serving residents earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income. The City selected the Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) as the developer and executed an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with HCHC on May 31, 2024. On August 20, 2024, the City provided additional responses confirming that none of the characteristics listed in Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(2) apply to the Properties. The City also confirmed the Properties’ use as a 100 percent affordable housing development in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(F)(i).
11.A.r
Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: R. HCD Exempt Surplus Land Declaration Review Letter 10.21.24 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Ayala Scott, Senior Development Analyst
SLA0001006
Conclusion and Next Steps
Based on the Documentation provided, HCD finds that the Properties qualify as “exempt surplus land” under Government Code section 54221, subdivision (f)(1)(F)(i). Furthermore, the City shall ensure that the requisite requirements are contained in a covenant or restriction to be recorded against the Properties at the time of sale or lease that shall run with the land and be enforceable against any owner who violates the covenant or restriction and each successor in interest who continues the violation (SLA Guidelines Section 103(c)(7)(A)).
If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Linda Ly, Senior Housing Policy Specialist, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Laura Nunn
Senior Manager, Housing Accountability Unit
Housing Policy Development
11.A.r
Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: R. HCD Exempt Surplus Land Declaration Review Letter 10.21.24 (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. ________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1402 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, (APN 4282-003-020) SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE;
FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY INTENDED TO BE LEASED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER IS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND UNDER THE SURPLUS LAND ACT;
DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
NEGOTIATE, ENTER INTO, AND SIGN ALL AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY OR REQUIRED TO ACQUIRE AND CONSUMMATE THE PURCHASE
OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE, AND TO TAKE ALL OTHER NECESSARY ACTIONS TO COMPLETE
THE ACQUISITION
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) desires to purchase the real property located at 1402 Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, APN 4282-003-020, which is more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A (“Property”), from Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Seller”) to serve a public purpose;
WHEREAS, for good and valuable consideration in an amount not to exceed $6,000,000, which amount does not exceed the appraised value of the Property, the City desires to acquire the Property for public purpose;
WHEREAS, a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (“Purchase Agreement”) by and between the parties, once drafted and executed, will memorialize the intent of the parties to transfer the Property to the City pursuant to its terms; WHEREAS, the City Council did meet to consider the consummation of the proposed purchase on December 17, 2024;
11.A.s
Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: S. Proposed Resolution Declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Exempt Surplus Land [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 WHEREAS, the City is a Charter City, authorized by its charter to acquire real property for any public purpose;
WHEREAS, the City desires to accept the Property for use by the City for public purposes and desires to pay Seller a sum not to exceed $6,000,000 for the transfer of this Property to the City;
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 27281 requires the City to accept the dedication of the Property by adopting a resolution of acceptance or delegating the authority to the City Manager, or designee, to sign on the City’s behalf a Certificate of Acceptance substantially in the form presented in Government Code Section 27281, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by this reference herein as Exhibit B; WHEREAS, immediately after the purchase of the Property by the City, the parties will execute a Ground Lease (“Lease Agreement”) pursuant to which the Seller will develop an affordable housing project on the Property; WHEREAS, the development will consist of eighty-two (82) units, with at least 40 percent of the housing units affordable to households whose incomes are equal to or less than 75 percent of the maximum income of lower income households and at least half of these affordable to very low income households plus two (2) resident manager units without income restrictions;
WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement satisfies the criteria set forth in Government Code Section 37364 because (1) at least 80 percent of the Property will be used for the development of housing, (2) at least 40 percent of the housing units will be affordable to households whose incomes are equal to or less than 75 percent of the maximum income of lower income households and at least half of these will be affordable to very low income
11.A.s
Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: S. Proposed Resolution Declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Exempt Surplus Land [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 households, and (3) the parties will execute a Regulatory Agreement guaranteeing that the Seller and its successors in interest will maintain the affordability restrictions described herein for at least 30 years; and,
WHEREAS, land transferred for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Government Code Section 37364 qualifies as “Exempt Surplus Land” under Section 54221(f)(1)(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica, State of California, that the purchase of the Property for the amount not to exceed $6,000,000 from the Seller, in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement to be drafted and executed by the parties, serves a public purpose and is therefore approved and authorized;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Property is hereby declared “exempt surplus land” under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(A) as the land will be transferred to provide affordable housing pursuant to Section 37364; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby delegated the authority to negotiate, amend and execute all documents and agreements necessary to consummate the purchase, including but not limited to the Certificate of Acceptance substantially in the form presented in California Government Code Section 27281, following approval as to form and legality by City Counsel and approval by City Manager, and to take all other necessary actions to complete the acquisition of the property.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
11.A.s
Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: S. Proposed Resolution Declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Exempt Surplus Land [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 4 _____________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
11.A.s
Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: S. Proposed Resolution Declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Exempt Surplus Land [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 5 EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS "X" AND "W" IN BLOCK 110 OF SANTA MONICA, IN THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGES 80 AND 81 AND IN BOOK 39, PAGE 45 ET SEQ., OF
MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 4282-003-020
11.A.s
Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: S. Proposed Resolution Declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Exempt Surplus Land [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 6 EXHIBIT B
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Government Code Section 27281)
Certificate of Acceptance
by
City of Santa Monica
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed dated ____________, _____ from ____________________, to the City of Santa Monica, a political subdivision of the State of California, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Santa Monica pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. ____________ of the Santa Monica City Council adopted on ________________, and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand on _______________ day of _______________.
By: ________________________
Name: DAVID WHITE
Title: CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
_______________________________
Name: DOUGLAS SLOAN
Title: CITY ATTORNEY
11.A.s
Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: S. Proposed Resolution Declaring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Exempt Surplus Land [Revision 3] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1217 Euclid Street
11.A.t
Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: T. Exterior Renderings (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1217 Euclid Street
11.A.t
Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: T. Exterior Renderings (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.t
Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: T. Exterior Renderings (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
11.A.t
Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: T. Exterior Renderings (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS
AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,
OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.
This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection.
It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after theofficial votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of SantaMonica.
All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees.
Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12- month period.
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, theCity compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any personorpersons whois seeking a “publicbenefit.” If the“public benefit” is sought by an entity, ratherthan an individual person, the information includes the nameof everyperson who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.
11.A.u
Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: U. HCHC_Dec 2024_OAKS INITIATIVE FORM (6695 : Wilshire DDA)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.
Public benefits include:
1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-monthperiod;
2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;
4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more inany 12-month period;
5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;
6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or
7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.
Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:
Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:
Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:
Prepared by: Title:
Signature: Date:
Email: Phone:
Permit #
FOR CITY USE ONLY:
Bid/PO/Contract #
11.A.u
Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: U. HCHC_Dec 2024_OAKS INITIATIVE FORM (6695 : Wilshire DDA) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
In 2022, California’s SB1439 extended requirements under Government Code Section 84308, also known as the "Levine Act", to prohibit City “Officers” from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $250 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.
Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal. Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:
An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or
(4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.
A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form.
https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
https://www.smgov.net/ /boards/.
Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $250 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________
11.A.v
Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: V. HCHC_Dec 2024_Levine Act Disclosure Form (6695 : Wilshire DDA) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.
By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:
Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.
11.A.v
Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: V. HCHC_Dec 2024_Levine Act Disclosure Form (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dima <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:09 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; Attorney Mailbox; councilmtgitems Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11A for City Council Meeting today 12/17/2024
EXTERNAL
Dear members of the City Council and City Attorney,
Given tonight’s DDA discussion and decision regarding the proposed affordable housing development on Euclid Street and 14th Street, the neighborhood would like to formally share our key requests to be addressed with the developer and City staff.:
1. Parking & Euclid Court alley access
o Public Parking Requirement: The original RFP explicitly intended to maintain public parking. The complete removal of public parking threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and residents. As you know, this has been the most prominent concern expressed during all community meetings, and unfortunately, we have not yet received a clear answer from the staff.
o New parking restrictions are needed to protect R4 zones from overflow. o There is a critical need to address traffic flow through Euclid Court alley, where additional ingress and egress points through the parking lot will be removed.
2. Community and Neighborhood Safety
o A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and residents of the neighboring community is needed.
o On-site property management during business hours with 24/7 emergency contact availability is necessary.
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term requirement) o Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid Street & 14th Street.
There are no light standards mid-block, making the street dark and unsafe.
o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. o 24-hour response for:
Graffiti removal
Encampment issues
Safety concerns
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 o Clear protocols for neighbors to report any issues and an escalation protocol to be established.
o A zero-tolerance policy for illicit drug use, loitering, and trespassing with clear enforcement procedures.
o Annual community meetings with the neighbors are essential for the wellbeing of all residents. o Quarterly property inspection with reports to the City.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Dima Volovik on behalf of Mid-Wilshire Neighbors.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 David Yakobson
From: nancy hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Santa Monica Neighbors
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 11 A - December 17, 2024 meeting
EXTERNAL
December 17, 2024
RE: Agenda Item 11 A
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
Architectural Approval:
The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board Parking & Access:
o The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? o This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. o Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
Safety Requirements:
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). o Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. o Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. o Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
Community Protection:
o A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
o Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 4 These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely
Nancy Hall
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 David Yakobson
From: Deborah Maddis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: VOTE YES - ITEM 11A – Development Authorization for housing on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire
EXTERNAL
Subject: ITEM 11A – Development Authorization for Housing on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a 40 year resident of Santa Monica, I strongly urge your vote for the housing development proposed by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on three Santa Monica sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire. The need for affordable housing has never been greater since the passage of Costa-Hawkins.
These model housing projects are designed to promote the health and well-being of residents and community while contributing to the economic growth and beautification of Santa Monica. The selected housing developer and services team, Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and The People Concern are highly qualified to create and sustain innovative permanent supportive housing for the most needy residents of our community.
Your support is much appreciated!
Thank you,
Debby
Deborah Maddis, MPH
Consultant
Integrating Healthcare and Housing
(310) 968-9903
[email protected]
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 David Yakobson
From: Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 11:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Lana Negrete Subject: Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Development Authorization for housing on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire Dear Santa Monica City Council:
I write to strongly endorse authorizing the affordable housing development by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on three Santa Monica sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard.
As long as the provider of these housing projects can support unhoused residents of Santa Monica as a priority, I fully support this endorsement. Equity, equality and supporting historically left out populations should also be a priority when awarding these contracts.
The developer team adjusted the sites and site plans in significant ways to respond to multiple suggestions raised in community meetings that I attended. I believe the resulting proposals repreexactly good basis for what we should strive for as a city that upholds its commitment to providing more equitable and compassionate housing alternatives. Please vote to support this project.
Respectfully,
Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 David Yakobson
From: Debra Shepherd <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Good evening council members,
I would like to support the housing development at Euclid and 14th and Wilshire Boulevard. I have participated in the zoom meetings conducted by the Hollywood Community Housing Corporation. I believe that this organization has thoughtfully considered the project and carefully considered the input provided by the community members that have participated in the process. As a housing voucher holder and resident advisory board member, I find that the project meets the needs of the population that it has been designed to accommodate. I’m very happy with the design of the buildings and I find that they fit in well within the existing neighborhood.
However, I am very disappointed with the way that some of the neighbors have comported themselves. Their behavior has been horrendous. They have even suggested that they should get to pick the tenants for the building.
That’s ridiculous. This is not a practice that happens in any jurisdiction, nor should it. I believe that some type of privacy element should be included on the first level to allow the residents to have comfort from overly zealous neighbors who believe that they have a right to have the residents under scrutiny and surveillance.
I have experience with hostile neighbors as a voucher holder. One of them used to call the police on my family, in an effort to get us evicted. I’m still here, and she’s not. I don’t want to see other people go through the hostility and discrimination that my family and I experienced.
Regards,
Debra Shepherd
Ocean Park resident
Sent from my iPad
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 4 David Yakobson
From: Lopez, Marlene Nancy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:29 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 11A (Development authorization on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire)
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I write to strongly endorse authorizing the affordable housing development by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on three Santa Monica sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard. This would be going in the right direction towards affordable housing that dignify residents. Please vote to support this project.
Yours truly,
Marlené Nancy Lopez
Associate Director of Communications and Operations, cityLAB Department of Architecture & Urban Design
University of California, Los Angeles
[email protected] | (310) 936-5905
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 5 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Naliboff <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 11A (Development authorization on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire)
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members ~
I strongly support the proposed affordable housing development by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on three Santa Monica sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard.
There is a desperate need for well-designed, all-affordable housing projects and these are model projects.
Please vote to support this project.
Sincerely,
Lynn Naliboff
1340 Pacific St.
Santa Monica
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 6 David Yakobson
From: Yang, Yang <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: ITEM 11A – Development Authorization for housing on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the affordable housing development proposed by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on the three sites located at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard. These are exemplary projects of thoughtful, communityfocused housing designed to integrate into the surrounding area and align with the values of inclusivity and compassion that our city strives for. Please support this much-needed affordable housing project.
Sincerely,
Yang
--
Yang Yang, PhD
Associate Director of Research, cityLAB
Department of Architecture & Urban Design
University of California, Los Angeles
[email protected] | (310) 531-3169
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 7 David Yakobson
From: barrie lev y <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item Number 11A (Development authorization on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire)
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
I am writing to urge you to authorize the Hollywood Community Housing Corporation's affordable housing development on three Santa Monica sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard. They are one of our region’s premier non-profit developers.
The plans for these projects are wonderful, models that will fit in with the neighborhood. Support for residents will be provided by excellent service providers. The projects will offer desperately needed supportive affordable housing in apartments that dignify the residents who will live there, and which situated so that they contribute positively to the community.
The developer team adjusted the sites and site plans in significant ways to respond to multiple suggestions raised in community meetings. I believe the resulting proposals represent exactly what we should strive for as a city that upholds its commitment to providing more equitable and compassionate housing alternatives.
Please vote to support this project.
Sincerely,
Barrie Levy
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 David Yakobson
From: Norman Zada <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 5:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Cc: Savannah Ryan; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 11A
A Proposal to Replace 1217 Euclid and Similar In-City Housing With Much Less Expensive and More Rewarding Construction
A $5,000/unit Proposal to End Homelessness
By Dr. Norman Zadeh
As explained below, instead of trying to construct 130 units here and there in-city ala 1217 Euclid, with the resulting parking and crime issues, the state can solve the entire homeless problem, remove all the tents from the streets, save California taxpayers billions of dollars, and make the homeless population and local merchants and residents happier than they have ever been. The solution is to build multiple ultra-low-cost centers with in-house dining and medical services on inexpensive land just outside populated areas and then fully care for each resident. The centers should provide their residents with a variety of learning options and activities – online and in-house classrooms, pools, tennis courts, game rooms, art and music studios, carpentry shops, etc. to create an environment so wonderful that residents never want to go back to the streets. As explained at lotfi-zadeh.com, by utilizing inexpensive land and low cost prefabricated construction, the cost of each housing unit would be approximately $5,000, and the annual cost of caring for each resident would be approximately $10,000.
Cost Comparison for California
California spent $24 billion over 5 years, or approximately $5 billion/year, on its homeless programs.i[1] During that period, homelessness increased by more than 20%. Had California built ultra-low-cost housing for all its homeless in 2018 and fully cared for them as we propose, assuming an average homeless population of 170,000, it would have cost California taxpayers $850 million to build housing for all 170,000 of California’s homelessii[2], and $1.7 billion a year for their care. California taxpayers would have saved more than $14 billion and completely ended homelessness five years ago.
Answers to likely concerns
Are the homes temporary or permanent? The homes are permanent. They are not tents. The structures are state of the art, weigh 150 pounds but are sturdy, cost $1,500 each, and have an estimated life of 30 years.iii[3] What about drug addicts and violent offenders? Residents will be screened for violent behavior and drug addiction. Those exhibiting violent tendencies will not be allowed at the centers. There will be separate facilities for drug addicts.
Will people want to go? It’s a choice between being hungry, cold, and sleeping on the street with no hope, vs. being fed, warm, and sleeping in your own room with multiple ways to grow and improve. Not a hard choice.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 Residents can leave whenever they want so there is no downside to checking out a facility. Once the first center is built and receives rave reviews, everyone will want to live in one.
Aren’t you giving some people a free ride? Any person who leaves their low-cost unit and moves to a center will free up that unit for someone else. In other words, such “free loading” will not change the number of available low-cost units. The bottom line is that 170,000 new housing units will be built very inexpensively, all the tents will be gone from the streets, and California taxpayers will save billions of dollars.
Where might the centers be built and what would be the impact on nearby communities? The centers will be at least five to ten miles from populated areas, possibly Merced or Lancaster in California or Scio in New York State. Nearby communities are likely to benefit, as the centers will purchase much of their food and supplies from local farmers and merchants.
How long would the construction take? Once a state gets behind the program to cut through red tape, construction should take at most six months.
Would residents have an opportunity to rejoin society? Residents will be offered online classes as well as in-house classes in carpentry, auto repair, sewing, art, musical composition, cooking, etc. Residents can leave whenever they want and rejoin society with their new skills.
What would it cost to end homelessness in the United States? With an estimated 650,000 homeless nationwide, it would cost approximately $3.25 billion to build 650,000 units and around $6.5 billion a year to fully care for all the residents. That is about 1/10 of 1% of federal spending, which in 2023 was $6.2 trillion.
Below is a site plan for a 1,000-unit trial facility. Its capacity can be increased by adding blocks of units around the sides.
LOTFI ZADEH FOUNDATION
Preliminary Site Plan for 1000+ Units
840’ x 760’ – 14.65 ACRES
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 About the Author: Dr. Norman Zadeh (aka Zada) taught Operations Research in a visiting capacity at Stanford, UCLA, UC Irvine, and Columbia Universities between 1975 and 1983. He managed hedge funds from 1991 to 2012. His father, Lotfi Zadeh, is a computer scientist known for creating fuzzy logic and fuzzy sets.
For more information, contact Dr. Norman Zadeh at [email protected] or call 310-409-7193.
i[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-homelessness-spending-audit-24b-five-years-didntconsistently-track-outcomes/ ii[2] Less than 170,000 units would be needed because some homeless individuals have families and each unit is large enough to hold a man and his wife, or an adult with children. iii[3] https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Hot-sale-3-in-1- portable_1600424730861.html?spm=a2700.pccps_detail.0.0.186713a0O6kuwF.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 4 David Yakobson
From: wendie olshan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11A - 12/17/2024
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
1. Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access:
◦ The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? ◦ This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. ◦ Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
3. Safety Requirements:
◦ 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). ◦ Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. ◦ Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. ◦ Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. ◦ Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
4. Community Protection:
◦ A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
◦ Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your
attention.
Sincerely,
W. Olshan
50 yr. + resident of Santa Monica
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 David Yakobson
From: Sharon Angela <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 8:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: stop
EXTERNAL
PLEASE STOP THIS CONSTRUCTION FROM DESTROYING MY NEIGHBORHOOD
I BEG YOU TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST THIS
Thank you
Sharon Currytto
resident of 14th street
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 David Yakobson
From: Joan Ling <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 8:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Dana Cuff
Subject: Item Number 11A (Development authorization on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am the former executive director of Community Corporation of Santa Monica (1991-2011) and have repeatedly seen the affordable housing project approval process played out over and over again in the city. People don't like change, they are afraid of a possible diminution of their quality of life, etc. But, all the projects we have built under my watch have been a net asset to the neighborhoods - great design, attentive property management, responsive to neighbors' concerns. The concerned neighbors changed their minds once the housing was built and occupied.
The affordable housing development by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on three Santa Monica sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard is no different. These are model housing projects, designed to fit in with the neighborhood, with resident support provided by excellent service providers, by one of our region’s premier non-profit developers. The projects will offer much needed supportive affordable housing in apartments that dignify the residents who will live there, and which are sited so that they contribute positively to the community. The developer team adjusted the sites and site plans in significant ways to respond to multiple suggestions raised in community meetings.
These locations are in the site inventory submitted by the city to the state as a part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) compliance. If not these, where?
Enough is enough. Approve them already. They represent the city's commitment to provide more equitable and compassionate housing alternatives.
Sincerely,
Joan Ling
--
Joan Ling
[email protected]
310-397-8835
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 David Yakobson
From: John Given <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 8:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11A Housing on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire
EXTERNAL
When the City declared the subject properties surplus in 2022 and issued the RFP in 2023, the City Council made the correct decision: the parking lots can be developed with affordable housing and replacement public parking. The proposal by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC), is responsive to that decision and the criteria set forth in the RFP. The City Council should affirm the good work completed to date by selecting HCHC as the developer and authorizing the necessary actions to expedite financing and construction of this project.
I urge your timely approval so the hard work of financing and developing the housing can begin.
JOHN GIVEN
[email protected]
310-430-1018
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 David Yakobson
From: AndaMiller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 8:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Agenda Item: 11A
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed developments at 1217 Euclid street & 1211-1217 14th Street. The DDA should not be signed until these issues are resolved and written into the contract, failing to do so erodes public trust.
Architectural Approval: *The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
Parking & Access:
The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned?
This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. No new parking permits for the new residence as they have their own parking.
Safety Requirements: 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
Community Protection:
A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 4 Prioritize community welfare over expedient development These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Anda Miller
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 5 David Yakobson
From: Frances Anderton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for housing development by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council-members:
I am writing to express my support for the affordable housing development by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on three sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard.
The projects will offer much needed supportive affordable housing in apartments beautifully designed by the architect Kevin Daly.
Not only will they be configured and managed to meet the security concerns of nearby residents, but the designs set a very high standard in terms of livability, emphasizing natural light, ventilation, and open gathering spaces for the tenants that will hopefully be highly beneficial.
Both Daly and HCHC have sterling track records in the design and development of affordable housing. So too does the City of Santa Monica, so I hope you will support this project that embodies the city’s values of equity, compassion and high-quality architecture and urban design.
Sincerely,
Frances Anderton
(Santa Monica resident)
Email: francesanderton.com
Mobile: 310-429-8158
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 6 David Yakobson
From: Tatiana <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share key issues and concerns related to the 14th Street project, as these directly impact our community.
Over the years, the residents and business owners in our neighborhood have made significant investments to improve and enhance the quality of life on this block. From beautification efforts to fostering a safe and vibrant environment, we have worked tirelessly to create a community we are proud of. As such, we believe the City Council not only has the ability but also the moral obligation to join us in these efforts rather than undermining them.
1. Parking & Access
• Public Parking Requirement: The original RFP was intended to maintain public parking. Why was this commitment abandoned?
• Direct Business Impact:The lack of sufficient parking threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses.
• Neighborhood Overflow:New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect R4 zones from overflow.
• Traffic Flow Concerns: It is critical to address traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys to prevent congestion and ensure safety.
2. Safety Requirements
• 24/7 Security: A mandatory 3-year term for 24/7 security guards at the 14th Street project is essential to ensure safety.
• Improved Lighting:Additional street lighting is needed on 1100 & 1200 Euclid Street and 14th Street to deter criminal activity.
• Security Cameras: Cameras must monitor all entrances and exits, with a minimum 30-day retention policy.
• Daily Maintenance:Regular sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas, is necessary to maintain a safe environment.
• 24-Hour Response Protocols: Immediate response is required for the following:
1. Graffiti removal
2. Encampment issues
3. Trash problems
4. Safety concerns
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 7 3. Maintenance Standards
(Please refer to the previously provided recommendations for this section.)
4. Community Protection
• “Good Neighbor Agreement”: A binding agreement between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and neighboring residents is essential.
• Zero Tolerance Policy: Strict enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and actionable procedures for residents. • Community Engagement: Annual community meetings to foster collaboration and accountability.
• Quarterly Inspections: Property inspection reports should be submitted quarterly to the city to ensure compliance with maintenance and safety standards.
We respectfully urge the Council to recognize and honor the work our community has already done to improve this block. This project must be implemented thoughtfully and responsibly to protect the safety, quality of life, and business vitality of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention to these critical matters.
Sincerely,
Tatiana Khmilinina
1325 Arizona Ave #202
Santa Monica CA 90404
310-800-8222
Thanks,
Tatiana
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 8 David Yakobson
From: Tatiana <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Yasha
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share key issues and concerns related to the 14th Street project, as these directly impact our community.
Over the years, the residents and business owners in our neighborhood have made significant investments to improve and enhance the quality of life on this block. From beautification efforts to fostering a safe and vibrant environment, we have worked tirelessly to create a community we are proud of. As such, we believe the City Council not only has the ability but also the moral obligation to join us in these efforts rather than undermining them.
1. Parking & Access
• Public Parking Requirement: The original RFP was intended to maintain public parking. Why was this commitment abandoned?
• Direct Business Impact:The lack of sufficient parking threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses.
• Neighborhood Overflow:New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect R4 zones from overflow.
• Traffic Flow Concerns: It is critical to address traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys to prevent congestion and ensure safety.
2. Safety Requirements
• 24/7 Security: A mandatory 3-year term for 24/7 security guards at the 14th Street project is essential to ensure safety.
• Improved Lighting:Additional street lighting is needed on 1100 & 1200 Euclid Street and 14th Street to deter criminal activity.
• Security Cameras: Cameras must monitor all entrances and exits, with a minimum 30-day retention policy.
• Daily Maintenance:Regular sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas, is necessary to maintain a safe environment.
• 24-Hour Response Protocols: Immediate response is required for the following:
1. Graffiti removal
2. Encampment issues
3. Trash problems
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 9 4. Safety concerns
3. Maintenance Standards
(Please refer to the previously provided recommendations for this section.)
4. Community Protection
• “Good Neighbor Agreement”: A binding agreement between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and neighboring residents is essential.
• Zero Tolerance Policy: Strict enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and actionable procedures for residents. • Community Engagement: Annual community meetings to foster collaboration and accountability.
• Quarterly Inspections: Property inspection reports should be submitted quarterly to the city to ensure compliance with maintenance and safety standards.
We respectfully urge the Council to recognize and honor the work our community has already done to improve this block. This project must be implemented thoughtfully and responsibly to protect the safety, quality of life, and business vitality of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention to these critical matters.
Sincerely,
Tatiana Khmilinina
1325 Arizona Ave #202
Santa Monica CA 90404
310-800-8222
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 10 David Yakobson
From: MarieHernandez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 9:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda: 11a - Euclid Street & 14th Street Housing Projects
EXTERNAL
Re: 11a
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My name is Marie, and I’m a neighbor who cares deeply about our community. I am writing to share my concerns regarding the Euclid Street & 14th Street Housing Projects.
I am a proponent of affordable housing but, you can't just destroy people while putting it in. Everyone should benefit, so I don't understand why the city is doing it this way and treating us like we don't care. 99% of my neighbors care about affordable housing, most of us are living paycheck to paycheck. But you are going to make it even harder for us to get to work, find parking when we come home at night after a long day.
I'm also an independent business owner. I know how hard it is to get by as a small owner. I am sad and alarmed by the potential economic disruption that the 14th Street Housing Project is going to create by removing the parking. The 14th Street Parking Lot is packed every day. Most of the people who use it are going to the hospital, doctors offices and can't afford the crazy $20.00 parking rates in the doctors offices. There are tons of people who park there who are visiting their kids who are sick in the hospital. Did you know that hospital has a children's wing in it? I met a mom who has been visiting her daughter who has cancer and parks in that 14th Street lot for the past year. Parents park there because it's affordable. I don't know why the plans for parking in this building went away. As a business owner I feel for all of the businesses on Wilshire. I know the ladies in the 2 salons on Wilshire and they are worried about their clients not wanting to come there any more and losing their jobs. You can't force people to take public transportation when its not safe or not convenient. Or you are old and have a technical barrier to using the apps. My mom can't figure out how to use the apps.
I'm also worried about my safety and the safety of the senior citizens you are putting on 14th Street. It does not make sense to put regular senior citizens next to people with severe substance abuse problems and health problems. My neighbor told me that you do not have to be sober to liver there. So you are going to have drug addicts, 1 block away from a school and in a neighborhood with tons of little kids and babies. All of this lacks common sense.
These are my major concerns:
The project threatens business viability by removing all of the parking The Walker Parking study says that the 14th street parking lot 12 is at 108% usage, which will further strain our already congested area
No clear plan exists to support local business accessibility Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 11 I Recommended these actions: Don't approve the DDA until these things have been done.
1. Conduct a comprehensive economic impact assessment
2. Spend the money on putting parking in both buildings to accommodate the businesse and neighbors
3. Create a "Good Neighbor Agreement" that protects the residents and kids
4. 24/7 security at the PSH housing
5. Tenants who get into the buildings have gone through treatment and are sober
6. Real accredited mental health professionals on staff 24/7
7. Architectural Plans for 14th Street need to be submitted and approved by the neighbors and ARB before you sign anything
8. Have a zero tolerance policy for drug use
9. Make sure there is an agreement to not have needles or glass pipes given out at these buildings. This is a family centric neighborhood.
Making this work requires responsible, thoughtful, collaborative planning.
Thank you for taking our community’s concerns seriously.
Sincerely,
Marie Hernandez
Mid Wilshire Neighbor
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 12 David Yakobson
From: Daphne Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 8:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11A Housing on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
Congratulations to the continuing and newly elected Council members.
I urge you to support the affordable housing projects on your agenda designed for sites on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire Blvd. These projects have been reviewed by the community, made changes responsive to that review, and will provide much-needed affordable housing with supportive social services.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these much-needed additions to the City’s housing options for vulnerable community members.
Regards, Daphne Dennis
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 13 David Yakobson
From: JenniferSmith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 7:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 11A / 1217 EUCLID STREET / 14TH STREET PROJECT
EXTERNAL
RE:11A
Dear City Council,
I’m Jen, and I’ve lived on the 1300 block of 14th Street for decades now. This is a tight-knit community, and many of us are concerned about the future of our neighborhood and city.
As a parent living near the proposed 14th Street Housing Project, I am deeply concerned about the potential risks to our community's safety and well-being.
This project is overwhelmingly stressful to myself and my neighbors. We are worried about our kids well being, safety and mental health. It is not healthy for children to be exposed on a daily basis to individuals high on drugs. The senior affordable housing is a perfect fit for the neighborhood and the kids, but I am worried about the PSH housing that does to require any drug testing at all. Is it fair to place vulnerable seniors next to seniors who have a substance abuse problem? I learned that The People Concern gives out needles and glass pipes in their buildings. I don't think distributing these in a neighborhood with tons of kids and vulnerable seniors is safe or responsible.
The current development plan raises huge red flags:
The parking study by Walker Consultants reveals that the 14th Street Parking Lot is already at 108% capacity
Additional housing without adequate parking will devastate local businesses and residential parking
Proximity to Lincoln Middle School demands stringent safety protocols. The proposed plans lack comprehensive safety measures:
There have been no archtitechtural plans submitted for the 14th Street project
o No provisions for 24/7 security
o Insufficient street lighting
o No clear strategy for managing potential substance-related issues Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 14 I urge you please, to delay the DDA:
1. A comprehensive safety review is completed
2. Require a detailed parking mitigation plan
3. Implement strict tenant screening processes
4. Until plans for the 14th Street project have been seen and approved by the neighbors
5. Work with SMPD to have more patrols in this neighborhood Our children's safety and our neighborhood's integrity are at stake.
Sincerely,
Jen Smith
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 15 David Yakobson
From: Dana Cuff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 7:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11A: Housing Dvlpmt on Euclid, 14th, and Wilshire
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council:
I write to strongly endorse authorizing the aƯordable housing development by Hollywood Community Housing Corporation on three Santa Monica sites at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard. These are model housing projects, designed to fit in with the neighborhood, with resident support provided by excellent service providers, by one of our regions premier non-profit developers. The projects will oƯer much needed supportive aƯordable housing in apartments that dignify the residents who will live there, and which are sited so that they contribute positively to the community. The developer team adjusted the sites and site plans in significant ways to respond to multiple suggestions raised in community meetings that I attended. I believe the resulting proposals represent exactly what we should strive for as a city that upholds its commitment to providing more equitable and compassionate housing alternatives. Please vote to support this project.
Sincerely,
Dana CuƯ
……………………………………………………………….
Dr. Dana Cuff
Director, cityLAB – UCLA
Professor, Architecture and Urban Design
Core Faculty, Urban Humanities Initiative
Rm B215-Perloff Hall UCLA
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1467
310-794-6125 office
310-804-0045 cell
……………………………………………………………………………..
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 16 David Yakobson
From: DanielCollins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 7:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Re: Agenda Item 11A - (1217 Euclid Housing Project) and the (1211-1217 14th Street Housing Project)
Development Disposition Agreement (DDA)
Dear City Council,
My name is Daniel. I am writing to express serious concerns about the proposed Development Disposition Agreement (DDA) for the Euclid Street and 14th Street Housing Projects, which represents a significant financial risk to Santa Monica taxpayers. I've been going through the documents provided and noticed there seems to be quite a few documents missing from a project of this size and scope in a residential neighborhood.
Financial Concerns:
The proposed agreement contains several critical financial irregularities:
1. Misallocation of Funds
A $13.5 million miscalculation by the developer HCHC has been identified in the DDA
The city proposes a $13,500,000 million dollar loan that includes a $6,000,000 loan to HCHC for acquiring 1402 Wilshire Boulevard property, The Unleashed building. This effectively means taxpayer dollars are being used to purchase the Unleashed building and gift it to the developer HCHC? The budget is from 2020 and have not taken into account inflation. This budget is therefore inaccurate. What are the real numbers for this project?
2. Governance and Transparency Failures
14th Street architectural plans are not provided in any documentation Current Budget provided is inaccurate from 2020 proposal Current budget does not line out community feedback for 24/7 security Addressing the future risk and shortfalls of money from the Federal government for section 8 vouchers.
The City of Santa Monica is subsiding all 40 vouchers for the PSH housing. If the money dries up who is paying?
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 17 The proposed DDA fails to meet fundamental standards of fiscal responsibility and ethical governance:
- Violation of Original Request for Proposal (RFP) Guidelines * The original RFP prioritizing parking and resident needs in its guidelines * HCHC's selected proposal disregards all of these critical requirements * Potential violations of the Oaks and Levine Act require thorough investigation - Lack of Accountability
* No robust accountability mechanisms are in place
* Potential violation of public funds
* Circumvention of standard procurement processes
Recommendations:
As elected officials and fiscal stewards, I urge the City Council to:
1. Immediately halt the current DDA
2. Conduct a comprehensive review and audit
3. Implement stringent accountability measures
4. Protect Santa Monica taxpayers from undue financial risk and burden.
This is more than a routine project review. It is a critical test of your commitment to ethical governance, financial transparency, and responsible public resource management. Your duty is not to rubber-stamp a flawed proposal, but to critically examine its implications for our community and future of Santa Monica.
Regards,
Daniel
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 David Yakobson
From: Galanty 2024 account <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 1:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 6
Attachments: Santa Monica.pdf
EXTERNAL
[email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 6
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
Architectural Approval
The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board Parking & Access
Reinstate the original RFP requirement for maintaining public parking Address the threat to Wilshire Blvd businesses and potential overflow into R4 zones Implement new parking restrictions to protect neighborhoods Resolve traffic flow issues through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys Safety Requirements
Provide 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term) Install additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention Implement daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas Mandate 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns Community Protection
Develop a comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community
Enforce zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures Conduct annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Mark Galanty
1640 5th St. Suite 202
Santa Monica, CA. 90401
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Email: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 6
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
Architectural Approval
The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board Parking & Access
• Reinstate the original RFP requirement for maintaining public parking • Address the threat to Wilshire Blvd businesses and potential overflow into R4 zones • Implement new parking restrictions to protect neighborhoods • Resolve traffic flow issues through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys Safety Requirements
• Provide 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term) • Install additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. • Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention • Implement daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas • Mandate 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns Community Protection
• Develop a comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community
• Enforce zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures • Conduct annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely, Mark Galanty
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 1 David Yakobson
From: Heidi Wulkow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
I’m a 24.5 year resident of Santa Monica and love living here. I do support affordable housing when it’s been done in concert with the community and takes into account the needs of all. Many of the proposed actions actually take away from residents, and seem to be missing some basic logic in terms of how plans would affect the entire community. I want to see our city retain its charm and uniqueness, and hoping we can do that without damaging what’s already here.
In addition to the points below, I would like to call out that there are some very old and beautiful trees that are at risk with these projects. Please consider that in the overall planning.
Regarding Agenda item 11A, I would like to make the following points:
1. Parking & Access
o Public Parking Requirement: The original RFP was explicitly intended to maintain public parking. Why was it abandoned?
o Direct Impact: Threatens viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses o Need new parking restrictions to protect R4 zones from overflow o The critical need to address traffic flow through Euclid Court & 14th Court alleys
2. Safety Requirements
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term requirement) o Additional street lighting needed on:1100 & 1200 Euclid Street & 14th Street o Security cameras monitoring all entrances/exits with 30-day retention o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas
o Mandatory 24-hour response for:
i. Graffiti removal
ii. Encampment issues
iii. Trash problems
iv. Safety concerns
3. Maintenance Standards
4. Community Protection
o A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and residents of the neighboring community. o Zero tolerance policy for illicit activities
o Transparent reporting and enforcement procedures for the community to use o Annual community meetings
o Quarterly property inspection reports to the city
Regards,
Heidi Wulkow
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 [email protected]
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 David Yakobson
From: Kazia Schulhof <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
I am very concerned about the direct impact this building project will have on the residents in this neighborhood. The parking situation here is already overwhelmed and we need in fact more parking not less. The congestion this residence will cause will already overwhelm the neighborhood.
I am also deeply concerned about security walking near these facilities. Again, we already need security and protection from the current street conditions. Many of us no longer walk alone even in the early evening. Additionally, we need help with the trash, encampment issues and filth that is on this street. This building project is only going to increase the issues we experience already.
With the city building these complexes it should come with responsibility. The responsibility to provide the surrounding residents with safety, security, and clean living environment with prompt and meaningful response to any issues that should arise from the new housing. Our points are these:
Parking & Access
Public Parking Requirement: The original RFP was explicitly intended to maintain public parking. Why was it abandoned?
Direct Impact: Threatens viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses Need new parking restrictions to protect R4 zones from overflow The critical need to address traffic flow through Euclid Court & 14th Court alleys 2
2. Safety Requirements
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term requirement) o Additional street lighting needed on:1100 & 1200 Euclid Street & 14th Street o Security cameras monitoring all entrances/exits with 30-day retention o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas
o Mandatory 24-hour response for:
1. Graffiti removal
2. Encampment issues
3. Trash problems
4. Safety concerns
3. Maintenance Standards (Section remains the same)
4.Community Protection
A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and residents of the neighboring community. Zero tolerance policy for illicit activities. Transparent reporting and enforcement procedures for the community to use
Annual community meetings
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 4 Quarterly property inspection reports to the city
Sincerely,
Kezia Schulhof
1251 14th St. #202
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 5 David Yakobson
From: George Guttman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
We need parking.
1) Where will handicap or elderly people park and also at a reasonable cost. 2) Do not issue any parking permits on any of these developments. 3) Very concerned about safety. We are going in the wrong direction.
1.Parking & Access
Public Parking Requirement: The original RFP was explicitly intended to maintain public parking. Why was it abandoned?
Direct Impact: Threatens viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses Need new parking restrictions to protect R4 zones from overflow The critical need to address traffic flow through Euclid Court & 14th Court alleys 2
2. Safety Requirements
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term requirement)
o Additional street lighting needed on:1100 & 1200 Euclid Street & 14th Street
o Security cameras monitoring all entrances/exits with 30-day retention o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas
o Mandatory 24-hour response for:
1. Graffiti removal
2. Encampment issues
3. Trash problems
4. Safety concerns
3. Maintenance Standards (Section remains the same)
4.Community Protection
A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and residents of the neighboring community.
Zero tolerance policy for illicit activities. Transparent reporting and enforcement procedures for the community to use
Annual community meetings
Quarterly property inspection reports to the city
Thank you.
George Guttman
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 6 Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 7 David Yakobson
From: Carly Ann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 10:30 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Addressing Key Concerns for the Proposed 14th Street Housing Project
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development to ensure it benefits our community without compromising safety, accessibility, or neighborhood integrity:
1. Architectural Review
The Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) should not be signed until:
Neighbors have reviewed the architectural plans.
The Architectural Review Board has given its approval.
2. Parking and Traffic Management
The project threatens to exacerbate parking and traffic issues, which require immediate attention:
Public Parking: Why has the original RFP requirement to maintain public parking been abandoned?
Business Impact: The loss of parking could harm businesses on Wilshire Boulevard and cause overflow into R4 residential zones. Implementing new parking restrictions is essential to protect our neighborhoods.
Traffic Flow: Address traffic congestion in Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys to ensure smooth flow and minimize disruptions.
3. Safety and Maintenance Measures
To protect the surrounding community, the following should be mandated:
Security: 24/7 security guards stationed at the project site for at least three years. Lighting: Install additional streetlights on the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Euclid Street and 14th Street.
Cameras: Install security cameras at all entrances and exits, with footage retained for a minimum of 30 days.
Cleanliness: Daily sidewalk cleaning for the project and surrounding areas. Rapid Response: A 24-hour maximum response time for addressing graffiti, encampments, trash, and other safety concerns.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 8 4. Community Protections
The project must prioritize the interests of the surrounding neighborhood:
Good Neighbor Agreement: A formal agreement between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community should outline roles and responsibilities. Zero Tolerance: Establish clear policies and transparent enforcement procedures for addressing illicit activities.
Ongoing Oversight: Require annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections, with reports submitted to the city.
These measures are critical to preserving the safety, functionality, and well-being of our neighborhood while integrating this development. I urge you to address these concerns thoroughly before proceeding.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Carly Ann Port
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 9 David Yakobson
From: Ashley Oelsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 10:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding the Proposed Development
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am writing to urge the council to address several critical issues related to the proposed development before moving forward:
1. Architectural Approval
o The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project have been reviewed by neighboring residents and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access
o The original Request for Proposals (RFP) required the preservation of public parking. Why has this key requirement been abandoned?
o This project jeopardizes the viability of businesses on Wilshire Boulevard and risks creating overflow parking in R4 zones. New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect residential neighborhoods.
o Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to mitigate additional congestion in these areas.
3. Safety Requirements
o A 24/7 security presence is essential for the 14th Street project for a minimum three-year term.
o Additional street lighting is needed on the 1100 and 1200 blocks of Euclid Street and 14th Street to enhance public safety.
o Security cameras should be installed at all entry and exit points, with a 30-day retention policy for recorded footage.
o Sidewalk cleaning should occur daily, extending to surrounding areas. o A mandatory 24-hour response policy is required for graffiti removal, trash cleanup, encampment issues, and other safety concerns.
4. Community Protection
o A "Good Neighbor Agreement" should be established between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community, outlining expectations and commitments.
o There must be a zero-tolerance policy for illicit activities, with clear and transparent reporting and enforcement mechanisms.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 10 o Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections should be required, with reports submitted to the city for review.
These measures are essential to protect the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood while ensuring that the development aligns with community expectations.
Thank you for your consideration and commitment to these concerns.
Sincerely,
Ashley Oelsen
Santa Monica Resident
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 11 David Yakobson
From: Tera Alene <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 10:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
1. Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access:
◦ The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? ◦ This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. ◦ Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
3. Safety Requirements:
◦ 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). ◦ Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. ◦ Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. ◦ Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. ◦ Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
4. Community Protection:
◦ A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
◦ Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best,
Tera Alene
Sent from my iPhone
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 12 David Yakobson
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 10:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
The community is raising the following issues and making request regarding this project and therefore it behooves you to address each and every one of them during when this item comes before you on Tuesday.
1.Parking & Access
Public Parking Requirement: The original RFP was explicitly intended to maintain public parking. Why was it abandoned?
Direct Impact: Threatens viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses Need new parking restrictions to protect R4 zones from overflow The critical need to address traffic flow through Euclid Court & 14th Court alleys 2
2. Safety Requirements
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term requirement) o Additional street lighting needed on:1100 & 1200 Euclid Street & 14th Street o Security cameras monitoring all entrances/exits with 30-day retention o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas
o Mandatory 24-hour response for:
1. Graffiti removal
2. Encampment issues
3. Trash problems
4. Safety concerns
3. Maintenance Standards (Section remains the same)
4.Community Protection
A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and residents of the neighboring community. Zero tolerance policy for illicit activities. Transparent reporting and enforcement procedures for the community to use
Annual community meetings
Quarterly property inspection reports to the city
Sincerely,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 13 "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 14 David Yakobson
From: Claudine Gachi <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 9:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11 A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development at that is “extremely ugly” and looks like a prison:
Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
Parking & Access:
o The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned?
o This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones. New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. o Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
Safety Requirements:
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). o Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. o Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. o Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
Community Protection:
o A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
o Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. o Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 15 Claudine Gachi
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 16 David Yakobson
From: Judy Van Selow <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 9:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11 A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following criƟcal issues regarding the proposed development at that is “extremely ugly” and looks like a prison:
• Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed unƟl the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board. • Parking & Access:
o The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? o This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones. New parking restricƟons are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. o Trafϐic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congesƟon. • Safety Requirements:
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). o AddiƟonal street lighƟng on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. o Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retenƟon. o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. o Mandatory 24-hour response for grafϐiƟ removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns. • Community ProtecƟon:
o A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
o Zero tolerance for illicit acƟviƟes, with transparent reporƟng and enforcement procedures. o Annual community meeƟngs and quarterly property inspecƟons submiƩed to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your aƩenƟon.
Sincerely,
Judy Van Selow
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 17 David Yakobson
From: David Jurus <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 6:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11 A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following criƟcal issues regarding the proposed development at that is “extremely ugly” and looks like a prison:
• Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed unƟl the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board. • Parking & Access:
o The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? o This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones. New parking restricƟons are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. o Trafϐic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congesƟon. • Safety Requirements:
o 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). o AddiƟonal street lighƟng on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. o Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retenƟon. o Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. o Mandatory 24-hour response for grafϐiƟ removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns. • Community ProtecƟon:
o A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
o Zero tolerance for illicit acƟviƟes, with transparent reporƟng and enforcement procedures. o Annual community meeƟngs and quarterly property inspecƟons submiƩed to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your aƩenƟon.
Sincerely,
David Jurus
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 18 David Yakobson
From: Mary Stewart <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
RE: Agenda Item 11 A
Dear City Council,
When your tenant calls you and tells you do you know what is being proposed a block from your building you listen. When that building is also a block from where your sons live you listen. I get calls weekly about people squatting in the carports, bolt cutters that are found under a pile of rags, laundry rooms broken into multiple times, calls to put in cameras, and gates. I currently have as many vacancies as I did during COVID. When asked why they are leaving , "they don't feel safe." I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development. The safety of our residence is at stake. The children who live in the neighborhood going to school each day are not safe.
1. Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access:
◦ The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? ◦ This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. ◦ Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
3. Safety Requirements:
◦ 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). ◦ Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. ◦ Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. ◦ Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. ◦ Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
4. Community Protection:
◦ A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
◦ Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and please take my concerns to heart. I was born and raised in Santa Monica. I want to be proud of my city once again.
Mary Stewart
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 19 David Yakobson
From: Susan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 2:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 1217 Euclid St 11A
EXTERNAL
I urge the City Council to delay approving the DDA with HCHC to strengthen this project and advance Santa Monica’s affordable housing goals. The $13.5 million funding gap—on top of providing the land as surplus—places a significant strain on the City’s resources. HCHC should work to reduce this burden, as it will be unsustainable to meet the Housing Element goals if each 100% affordable project requires tens of millions in funding gaps.
Additionally, while the RFP called for approaches to replacing public parking, the current proposal does not include a clear plan to address this. Eliminating public parking without viable alternatives could harm businesses and visitors along Wilshire Boulevard. Taking the time to address these financial and community concerns will make the project more sustainable and effective.
Susan
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 20 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 10:24 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11 A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
How about doing the right think!
I urge you to address the following criƟcal issues regarding the proposed development:
1. Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed unƟl the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access:
◦ The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? ◦ This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restricƟons are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. ◦ Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congesƟon.
3. Safety Requirements:
◦ 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). ◦ AddiƟonal street lighƟng on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. ◦ Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retenƟon. ◦ Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. ◦ Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiƟ removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
4. Community ProtecƟon:
◦ A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
◦ Zero tolerance for illicit acƟviƟes, with transparent reporƟng and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meeƟngs and quarterly property inspecƟons submiƩed to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your aƩenƟon.
Sincerely,
Fred Alexander
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 21 David Yakobson
From: Kelli <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 9:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: RE: Agenda Item 11 A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
1. Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access:
◦ The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned? ◦ This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. ◦ Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
3. Safety Requirements:
◦ 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). ◦ Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. ◦ Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. ◦ Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. ◦ Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
4. Community Protection:
◦ A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and the community.
◦ Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Kelli Urode
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 22 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 8:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: Agenda Item 11 A
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
1. Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street
Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access:
◦ The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned?
◦ This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. ◦ Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
3. Safety Requirements:
◦ 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). ◦ Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. ◦ Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. ◦ Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. ◦ Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
4. Community Protection:
◦ A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People
Concern (TPC), and the community.
◦ Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 23 These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood.
Faustino Garza
37-year homeowner and resident
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 24 David Yakobson
From: Faustino Garza <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2024 8:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11 A
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I urge you to address the following critical issues regarding the proposed development:
1. Architectural Approval: The DDA should not be signed until the architectural plans for the 14th Street
Housing Project are reviewed by neighbors and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Parking & Access:
◦ The original RFP explicitly required maintaining public parking. Why was this requirement abandoned?
◦ This project threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and causes overflow into R4 zones.
New parking restrictions are urgently needed to protect our neighborhoods. ◦ Traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys must be addressed to prevent further congestion.
3. Safety Requirements:
◦ 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project (3-year term). ◦ Additional street lighting on 1100 & 1200 Euclid St. and 14th St. ◦ Install security cameras at all entrances/exits with 30-day retention. ◦ Daily sidewalk cleaning, including surrounding areas. ◦ Mandatory 24-hour response for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash, and safety concerns.
4. Community Protection:
◦ A comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" is needed between the developer (HCHC), The People
Concern (TPC), and the community.
◦ Zero tolerance for illicit activities, with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures. ◦ Annual community meetings and quarterly property inspections submitted to the city.
These steps are vital to ensuring the safety, sustainability, and integrity of our neighborhood.
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 25 Faustino Garza
37-year homeowner and resident
Sunset Park
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 26 David Yakobson
From: Giacomo Valentini <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 4:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Meeting Tuesday, Dec17 - Agenda Item 11A
EXTERNAL
Concerns: Agenda Item 11A
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the upcoming 1217 Euclid Street Housing Project and the 1211-1217 14th Street Housing Project. Despite previous community input, several critical issues remain unresolved.
Firstly, the removal of the public parking requirement from the original RFP threatens the viability of Wilshire Blvd businesses and necessitates new parking restrictions to protect R4 zones from overflow. Additionally, the traffic flow through Euclid Court and 14th Court alleys requires immediate attention.
Secondly, the safety of the project and surrounding areas needs to be ensured through 24/7 security guards for the 14th Street project, additional street lighting, security cameras with 30-day retention, and daily sidewalk cleaning. A mandatory 24-hour response protocol should be in place for graffiti removal, encampment issues, trash problems, and safety concerns.
Thirdly, a comprehensive "Good Neighbor Agreement" between the Developer (HCHC), The People Concern (TPC), and residents is crucial. This agreement should include a zero-tolerance policy for illicit activities with transparent reporting and enforcement procedures, as well as annual community meetings and quarterly property inspection reports to the city.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Giacomo Valentini
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 27 David Yakobson
From: Joyce Urode <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 8:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: euclid project
EXTERNAL
dear council members! please reconsider this disastrous project! it will destroy our neighborhoods and the businesses on wilshire blvd. where are the business going to have customers park?? there are numerous buildings all over santa monica that are empty so use them for housing! please reconsider this project. you are destroying our neighborhoods! thank u joyce urode Sent from my iPhone Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
11.A.w
Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) Disposition and Development Agreement and
Ground Lease Deal Terms
1217 Euclid Street, 1211-17 Fourteenth Street and 1402 Wilshire Boulevard December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 2 Brief Background
• 130 residences
• Original Proposal included City-owned parking lots located at 1217 Euclid Street, 1211-1217 Fourteenth Street, and 1146 16th Street • Identified for affordable housing in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element • Request for Proposal in 2023
• Development team led by Hollywood Community Housing Corp. (HCHC) selected in March 2024
• Council provided direction on August 27, 2024 on a revised proposal for the Development
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 3 Community & Business Outreach
1. HCHC hosted four
community meetings:
May 22nd and 23rd
July 8th and 10th
6. Development Team
shared current proposal at
Fifth Community Meeting
on October 23rd 2024
3. HCHC and kdA reviewed
feedback and modified
the proposal
2. We received feedback via:
• Community meetings
• Project website
• Project email
• Project voicemail
• Public comments at City
Council meetings
4. On August 27th, City
Council directed City staff to
continue negotiations with
HCHC for a revised
development at Euclid and
14th Streets totaling 130 apts
5. City staff conducted
door-to-door outreach to 31
businesses on Wilshire Blvd
employees’ and customers’ use
of the City-owned parking lots.
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1656 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 4 Revised Proposal Updates
Unit Type 1217
Euclid St
1211-1217 14th St &
1402 Wilshire Blvd
1146
16th St
Apt Type
Total
One Bed 21 80 (40 units to be PSH*)
To remain
as public
parking
101
Two Bed 14 2 16
Three Bed 13 0 13
Total 48 82 130
Unit Type 1217
Euclid St
1211-1217
14th St
1146
16th St
Apt Type
Total
Studio 0 4 9 13
One Bed 48 (40 units to be
PSH*) 0 0 48
Two Bed 17 13 7 37
Three Bed 0 28 4 32
Total 65 45 20 130
Original Proposal Revised (Current) Proposal
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 5 Revised Proposal Based on Community Input
• Fourteenth Street to house seniors 55+
• Euclid Street family housing
• Sixteenth Street to remain public parking
• Acquisition of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard to step down height adjacent to residential
• Increased security measures
• Vehicle queuing areas on-site to minimize alley congestion December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 6 The Development – Euclid Street
Development Highlights:
• Six Stories
• 48 Affordable Housing Apartments
• Over 50% will be dedicated to larger bedroom residences • 21 one-bedroom residences
• 14 two-bedrooms residences
• 13 three-bedrooms residences
• 40 Tenant subterranean parking
• Incomes ranging from 30% to 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) • One Full-time Property Manager residing on-site
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 7 The Development – Fourteenth Street / 1402 Wilshire Boulevard Development Highlights:
• Includes the acquisition of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard
• Tiered Development between three and six stories
• 82 Affordable Senior Housing Apartments
• 80 one-bedroom residences
• 40 dedicated supportive apartments with Project Based Vouchers from the Santa Monica Housing Authority
• 42 Tenant ground level parking
• Incomes ranging from 30% to 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) • Two Full-time Property Managers residing on-site
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 8 Euclid Street
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 9 Euclid Street
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 10 14th Street and Wilshire Boulevard
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 11 14th Street Elevation
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 12 Key Deal Terms – Acquisition of 1402 Wilshire Blvd
• Acquisition of 1402 Wilshire Boulevard by HCHC
• HCHC would own 1402 Wilshire Blvd until it has secured all construction financing • At that time, HCHC will transfer ownership to the City • City will concurrently ground lease the combined Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Blvd site back to HCHC
• City to provide $6,000,000 acquisition loan; repayment at construction closing to reduce City loan down to $2,500,000 (approximate)
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 13 Key Deal Terms – Ground Leases + City Loan
• Residential Ground Lease
• The City will ground lease all three sites to the developer for a term of 55 years plus two options of 22 years
• The City will provide the two city-owned sites to the project (1217 Euclid and 1211 – 1217 14th Street).
• For these sites, the City will receive an annual rent payment of $1 per year plus residual receipts.
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 14 Key Deal Terms – Ground Leases + City Loan
• Public Lenders (including City’s Housing Trust Fund) receive 50% share of net cash flow (residual receipts) from the Developments.
• In affordable housing developments, residual receipts are the annual payments on the City Loan after all debt service and operational expenses are paid. • Industry Standard is 50% goes towards the public lenders and the remaining 50% goes towards the development partnership.
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 15 Key Deal Terms – Site Security
• A resident Property Manager will be on each site Monday - Friday from 8am to 5pm beginning with move-ins
• Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Blvd site will have a second Assistant Property Manager Monday - Friday from 2pm to 10pm.
• At all times when not on duty, the Property Manager or Assistant Property Manager will be on-call and available by phone for after-hours emergencies. • HCHC will provide security for the first year of operations at the Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Blvd site during night and weekend hours. • The City can request a meet and conferto assess the Development’s security needs.
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 16 Key Deal Terms – Tenant Selection
• Must utilize a City-administered waitlist
• City’s Below Market Housing (BMH) waitlist to fill general affordable apartments • Live/work priority
• Santa Monica Housing Authority’s waitlist to fill the Permanent Supportive Housing apartments, with priority for those homeless or at-risk of homelessness in Santa Monica (Santa Monica Priority Population - SMPP applicants).
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1669 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 17 Development Financing Summary
• If a funding gap should occur, City staff can approve Housing Trust Fund loans that comply with the City’s Housing Trust Fund Guidelines • Any request outside of the Housing Trust Fund Guidelines will be brought before City Council for approval
• HCHC anticipates a total funding gap from both developments of $13,500,000, which falls within the City’s Housing Trust Fund Guidelines. • This is inclusive of a $6,000,000 acquisition loan to HCHC to acquire 1402 Wilshire Boulevard and is allowable under the City’s Housing Trust Fund Guidelines.
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 18 Replacement Public Parking Assessment
• Parking Assessment
• 98 existing public parking spaces on Euclid Street and 14th Street • Parking study reflects that parking lots are utilized • Discussions with business owners reflect a concern for employee and business patron parking • 16th Street: 21 parking spaces will remain
• Replacement Parking Options
• 14th street on-site replacement: 35 replacement parking spaces • Would require additional $6,340,316 from City Housing Trust Funds • Nose-in Street Replacement: Not Recommended
• Safety Issue for streets with Traffic Signals
• Against Existing City Policy for Parking Regulations
• Current City Policy & Mobility Initiatives
• Limited Housing Trust Funds Resources
• Pending the Repayment of Housing Trust Funds, which continue to be withheld • Three remaining City-owned sites to support with HTF's to cover financing gaps • Thriving Commercial Corridors
• Montana Ave/Ocean Park Ave are evidence of thriving commercial corridors in our city that do not have public parking lots December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1671 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) 19 Next Steps
• Entitlements in progress
• With City Council Approval, the City Manager will execute a DDA and associated documents to allow HCHC to apply for outside financing • Euclid Street
• Tax credit funding application in March 2025
• If successful, construction will start in late 2025
• Construction completed and move-ins estimated for 2027. • Fourteenth Street/1402 Wilshire Blvd
• MHP Funding Application and Acquisition of 1402 Wilshire in Second Quarter of 2025 • Tax Credit and Tax-Exempt Bond Funding Application in September 2025 • If successful, construction will start in Spring 2026 • Construction completed and move-ins estimated for 2028 December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
December 17, 2024
Item 11-A
11.A.x
Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6695 : Wilshire DDA) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution to issue Bonds for the Benefit of 710 Broadway Affordable
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
2. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and
3. Adopt a resolution approving the issuance of California Municipal Finance Authority bonds in an amount not-to-exceed $350,000,000 for the benefit of 710 Affordable LP or a related or successor entity for the purpose of financing or refinancing the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 710 Broadway, Santa Monica.
Summary
710 Broadway Affordable LP (“Borrower”), a developer of affordable housing at 710 Broadway in Santa Monica, has requested the City’s approval for the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”), a joint powers authority of which the City is a member, to issue revenue obligations (“Bonds”) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $350,000,000 to finance the project. To qualify as tax exempt facility bonds for a residential rental project pursuant to Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code and the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (“TEFRA”), the elected representatives of the City must approve the issuance of the Bonds at a public hearing. A proposed resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds by CMFA is included as Attachment A.
12.A
Packet Pg. 1673
2 of 4
Approval of the Bonds does not obligate the City financially in any way and it is not an approval of the Project for any other purpose.
Discussion
The CMFA was formed to assist local governments, non-profit organizations, and businesses with the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds aimed at improving the standard of living of California. The CMFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member, and the debts and obligations of the CMFA do not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of the members. The City is a member of the CMFA. However, there are no costs associated with membership in the CMFA and the City will in no way become exposed to any financial liability by reason of its membership in the CMFA. In addition, participation by the City in the CMFA will not impact the City’s appropriations limits and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the City. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing and adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will be required.
The CMFA proposes to issue up to $350 million of tax-exempt revenue bonds for the purposes of making a loan to the Borrower for: (1) the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 710 Broadway, Santa Monica, California, and (2) paying certain costs of issuance in connection with such financing or refinancing.
The Bonds to be issued by the CMFA on behalf of the Borrower will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower. The City will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability, or responsibility for the repayment of the Bonds. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the Bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the Bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.
The Board of Directors of the California Foundation for Stronger Communities, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “Foundation”), acts as the Board of
12.A
Packet Pg. 1674
3 of 4
Directors for the CMFA. Through its conduit issuance activities, the CMFA shares a portion of the issuance fees it receives with its member communities and donates a portion of these issuance fees to the Foundation for the support of local charities. With respect to the City of Santa Monica, it is expected that a portion of the issuance fee attributable to the City will be granted by the CMFA to the general fund of the City. Such grant may be used for any lawful purpose of the City.
As required by law, a public hearing notice was published in The Santa Monica Daily Press at least 7 days prior to the hearing date.
Environmental Review
The approval of the bonds is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. The bonds are covered by the commonsense exemption which states that CEQA does not apply “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The approval of the bonds is an administrative procedure. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The issuance of the Bonds will have no financial impact to the City other than it is expected that CMFA will provide a small portion of the issuance fees to the City. The CMFA will act as issuer and perform all necessary legal and administrative responsibilities associated with the financing. The Bonds are special, limited obligations of CMFA payable solely through the repayment of the loans from the CMFA, which repayment is used to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The Bonds issued by CMFA are not an obligation of the City or any CMFA member. Neither the faith or credit, nor the taxing power of the City, any CMFA member, the State or any other political subdivision is pledged to the repayment of the Bonds.
12.A
Packet Pg. 1675
4 of 4
Prepared By: Adriana Franco, Principal Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - 710 Broadway Resolution 121724
12.A
Packet Pg. 1676
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS BY THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR
REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, AND EQUIPPING OF A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 710
BROADWAY, SANTA MONICA
WHEREAS, 710 Broadway Affordable, LP (the “Borrower”) a partnership of which The Related Companies (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $350,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 710 Broadway, Santa Monica, California (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and Attachment A
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1677 Attachment: Attachment A - 710 Broadway Resolution 121724 [Revision 2] (6753 : Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution to issue Bonds WHEREAS, the Authority and the Borrower have requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall comply with the public approval requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code; provided, however, that this Resolution is neither intended to, nor shall it constitute, an approval by the City Council of the Project for any other purpose; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AND PROCLAIM AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitutes approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, both for the purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located and as required by Section 4 of the Agreement. This resolution, however, shall not constitute an Attachment A
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1678 Attachment: Attachment A - 710 Broadway Resolution 121724 [Revision 2] (6753 : Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution to issue Bonds approval by the City Council of the Project for any other purposes, nor does it constitute an approval of the underlying credit or financial structure of the Bonds.
SECTION 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City is not a party to any of the financing documents relating to the Bonds and the City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.
SECTION 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing or refinancing to acquire or construct the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.
SECTION 5. The officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the issuance of the Bonds and otherwise to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
Attachment A
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 1679 Attachment: Attachment A - 710 Broadway Resolution 121724 [Revision 2] (6753 : Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution to issue Bonds City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Dan Hall's resignation from the Santa Monica Pier Corporation and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resignation Letter
16.A
Packet Pg. 1680
From: Dan Hall
To: Nikima Newsome; Carter Rubin; Jim Harris (Santa Monica Pier) Subject: Hall Pier Board Resignation Letter
Date: Monday, December 9, 2024 9:33:06 AM
Attachments: Hall SMPC Resignation Letter.pdf
Niki, Carter, and Jim,
Please see attached for my resignation letter from the Pier Corporation Board of Directors, effective tomorrow, 5:00 p.m. Thank you for your partnership and support over the past few years.
Dan
16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1681 Attachment: Resignation Letter (6808 : Resignation from SM Pier Corp. D. Hall (2 mins.)) Dan Hall
Member, Board of Directors, Santa Monica Pier Corporation 200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite A
Santa Monica, CA 90401
December 9, 2024
Nikima Newsome
City Clerk, City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Carter Rubin
Chair, Board of Directors, Santa Monica Pier Corporation 200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite A
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Jim Harris
Executive Director, Santa Monica Pier Corporation
200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite A
Santa Monica, CA 90401
City Clerk Newsome, Chair Rubin, and Executive Director Harris, It is with mixed emotions that I am resigning my position as a Board Member of the Board of Directors of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation effective 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2024.
It has been an honor to serve our City and the Pier Community as a Board Member and wish you the best moving forward.
Thank you for your support this year.
Dan Hall
Board Member
200 SANTA MONICA PIER, SUITE A, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
1 16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1682 Attachment: Resignation Letter (6808 : Resignation from SM Pier Corp. D. Hall (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.B
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Natalya Zernitskaya's resignation from the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resignation Letter
16.B
Packet Pg. 1683
1 Xavier Mota
From: Natalya Zernitskaya
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 2:00 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox
Subject: Resignation from TOT Advisory Committee
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
To: The Santa Monica City Council
As I will now be serving on the Santa Monica City Council, I am resigning from my position on the Transient Occupancy Tax Advisory Committee. It has been a pleasure to serve alongside the other members of the committee.
Best Regards,
Natalya Zernitskaya
16.B.a
Packet Pg. 1684 Attachment: Resignation Letter (6819 : Resignation from TOTAC N. Zernitskaya) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.C
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Jason Brown's resignation from the Personnel Board and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resignation Letter
16.C
Packet Pg. 1685
From: Jason Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 4:19 PM
To: Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Dana Brown <[email protected]>; Sasha Sargent <[email protected]>; Ivan Campbell <[email protected]>; Nikima Newsome <[email protected]>
Subject: Resignation from the Personnel Board
Dear City Clerk and HR staff -
Please accept this as my (late) official notice of resignation from the Personnel Board. Per my previous email to HR staff and the City Attorney, I’d like to make the official effective date as of yesterday, Dec 9.
Thanks,
Jason
16.C.a
Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Resignation Letter (6815 : Resignation from Personnel Board J. Brown (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.D
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Kera Blades-Snell's resignation from the Santa Monica Travel and Tourism Board and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resignation Letter
16.D
Packet Pg. 1687
December 11th, 2024
Misti Kerns
Executive Director
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism Board
Santa Monica, CA
Dear Misti,
I am writing to formally resign from my position as a member of the Santa Monica Travel and Tourism Board, effective immediately.
This decision is necessary as I am no longer eligible to serve on the board following my husband, Barry Snell, being sworn in as a Santa Monica City Councilmember. I want to ensure full compliance with the city’s policies and maintain the integrity of both the board and the council.
It has been a true privilege and I am grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with such dedicated individuals.
I wish you and SMTT continued success in the vital work you do for our community.
Sincerely,
Kera Blades-Snell
16.D.a
Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Resignation Letter (6820 : Resignation from SMTT K. Blades-Snell (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.E
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Andrew Gomez's resignation from the Recreation and Parks Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resignation Email
16.E
Packet Pg. 1689
From: Andrew Gomez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 11:30 AM
To: Nikima Newsome <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Recreation and Parks Commission
Good morning,
I am stepping down from my seat on the Recreation and Parks Commission. If I can suggest a real evaluation needs to be taken for the few members of color to have the opportunity to be a Chair. Look at the demographics of our Boards and Commissions and a City that supposedly is a leader in diversity and inclusion is not. I have tried to bring this to folks attention but have just been ignored.
Thank you,
Andrew Gomez
16.E.a
Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Resignation Email (6809 : Resignation from Rec & Parks Comm. A. Gomez (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.F
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Recommendation to accept Derek Devermont's resignation from the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy
Prepared By: Xavier Mota, Staff Assistant III
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resignation Email
16.F
Packet Pg. 1691
1 Xavier Mota
From: Lisa Parson
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 10:49 AM
To: Nikima Newsome; Xavier Mota
Subject: Resignation of PSROC Chair
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
The Chair of the PSROC has resigned. He had an unexpected death in his family and is not able to be contacted for the forseeable future. He announced his resignation at the last PSROC meeting on December 3rd, and the audio was recorded so there is a record of it. Can you tell me what else you need from me to facilitate the opening of the application process to find his replacement? Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa Parson (She/Her)
Equity and Inclusion Manager
(424) 299- 6748
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
16.F.a
Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Resignation Email (6817 : Resignation from PSROC D. Devermont (2 mins.)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.G
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Appointments to Vacant Seats on the Audit Subcommittee Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.G
Packet Pg. 1693
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.H
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designate a Councilmember as a Governing Board Representative to the Westside Cities Council of Governments (COG) and designate an Alternate Governing Board Representative. The Joint Powers Authority and By-laws require each City Council to designate one of its Councilmembers as a Governing Board Representative and one Councilmember as an Alternate Governing Board Representative.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.H
Packet Pg. 1694
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.I
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of City's voting delegate and alternate to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 60th Annual Regional Conference and General Assembly Business Meeting from May 1-2, 2025 at the JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort & Spa in Palm Desert, CA
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.I
Packet Pg. 1695
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.J
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of a Councilmember to the Independent Cities Association (ICA).
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.J
Packet Pg. 1696
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.K
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of voting delegate and alternate(s) for the CalCities Annual Conference and Expo, to be held October 8 -10, 2025, in Long Beach, California.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
16.K
Packet Pg. 1697
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.L
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Designation of a representative to serve as a director of the Board of Clean Power Alliance. The Joint Powers Authority requires the governing body of a member agency to appoint and designate, in writing, one Regular Director who shall be authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party on matters within the powers of the Authority and up to two Alternate Directors who may vote on matters when the Regular Director is absent. The person appointed and designated as the Director shall be an elected or appointed member of the governing body of the Party. The alternate directors may be a Councilmember, City staff member, member of an advisory body to the council, or member of the public with demonstrated knowledge in energyrelated matters through significant industry, regulatory, academic, or nonprofit experience.
Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Appointments to Clean Power Alliance
B. Written Comments
16.L
Packet Pg. 1698
Appointments to the CPA Board of Directors
The JPA requires the governing body of a member agency to appoint and designate, in writing, one Regular Director and up to two Alternate Directors, who may vote on matters when the Regular Director is absent.
Qualifications
x The regular director must be an elected or appointed member of the agency’s governing body (i.e., a city council member or county supervisor) x The alternate directors may be a
o Council member;
o City staff member;
o Member of an advisory body to the council; or
o Member of the public with demonstrated knowledge in energy-related matters through significant industry, regulatory, academic, or non-profit experience.
Per CPA policy, only a regular or alternate director appointed by the governing body may vote in Board meetings.
Notification to CPA
Member agencies should inform the CPA Clerk of the Board via email of their appointments to the Board of Directors. Notifications should include the following information for each of your representatives: name, email, phone number, appointment date.
Contact:
Gabby Monzon
[email protected]
(213) 713-5995
16.L.a
Packet Pg. 1699 Attachment: Appointments to Clean Power Alliance (6807 : Appointment to CPA Board of Directors) 1 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 12:38 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Council 12/17/24, Support of Agenda Item 16 L
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Mayor Negrete and Council Members:
I write as a Clean Power Alliance (CPA) Community Advisor for the westside. Tonight, Council has the opportunity to designate the City’s Director for the CPA Board and two Alternate Directors. It is a particularly timely designation as the City closes its 30th year of celebrating its sustainability leadership. With continuity, institutional knowledge, expertise, focus and meaningful relationships in mind, Council can designate the City's CPA Director and Alternate Directors to help advance Santa Monica and CPA in achieving ambitious climate goals. I highly recommend that Council designate Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis as the Director and former Council Member Gleam Davis as the new 1st Alternate Director. The 2nd Alternate needs to be someone ready, with the capacity and focus, to step up whether from Council or from our knowledgeable community, including Climate Action Santa Monica (CASM) members, to carry on the good work.
It was after all, the City’s and residents’ leadership, largely through CASM, who helped bring CPA into being in 2017 and begin serving customers in 2018 with a mission "to address the impacts of climate change and provide the communities we serve with avenues to meet their clean air goals and to improve the health and wellbeing of their residents.” For the second year in a row, CPA has ranked as the number one green power provider in the United States, and it is crucial to maintain the impressive results, furthering CPA's impacts. We are fortunate to have many local successes with CPA. Celebrating our youth leaders earlier this year, CPA welcomed their effort in helping the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District become a CPA Green Leader with a 100% renewable energy standard. The City has worked closely with CPA on many programs enabling Santa Monica’s influence to extend further as with our Building Reach Code and so much more.
At this critical time, with a new federal administration including many climate deniers, our local and regional climate solutions need to be maximized. The work of CPA is profound. I trust Council to make a wise designation of the CPA Director and Alternate Directors.
With gratitude and respect,
Cris Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident
Clean Power Alliance Community Advisor, Westside
Item 16-L
December 17, 2024
Item 16-L
December 17, 2024
16.L.b
Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6807 : Appointment to CPA Board of Directors) Je# Bush is a long-time resident of Santa Monica and has many years of corporate energy and utility industry experience.
Early in his career, he served in analytical, regulatory, managerial and business development roles with Southern California Gas Company. He became a leader of a Sempra Energy business that sold energy commodities to large energy users along with risk management and energy e#iciency services. The services helped the large energy users meet operating budget and carbon emission targets.
After the business was sold and renamed Calpine Energy Solutions. Je# continued as a Business Development executive and closed transactions that provided savings to large energy users and created significant enterprise value.
Je# also sold Calpine Energy Solutions’ Data Manager Services to emerging California Community Choice Aggregators (CCA’s) which helped the CCA’s successfully initiate service.
Je# attends virtually many of the Clean Power Alliance (CPA) Board and Committee Meetings and has helped Climate Action Santa Monica (CASM) identify opportunities to enroll additional Santa Monica meters in CPA without incurring additional costs. He has also met with the leaders of some of the Northern California CCA’s and a few of the CPA Board Members.
He currently operates a consulting business, Greenbush Capital LLC, which provides insight into the California and West Coast wholesale electricity, capacity and RPS markets.
He provides services to merchant electricity generators and large commercial/industrial electricity users.
Je# is the Vice Chair of the City of Santa Monica Audit Subcommittee and has developed an understanding of the fiscal challenges facing the City.
Je# is also a significant supporter and advisor to CASM and serves on the University of California Davis (UCD) College of Engineering Dean’s Executive Committee.
He has an undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from UCD and an MBA from UCLA.
Item 16-L
December 17, 2024
Item 16-L
December 17, 2024
16.L.b
Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6807 : Appointment to CPA Board of Directors) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2024
Agenda Item: 16.M
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request of Councilmembers Hall and Raskin, and Mayor Pro Tem Torosis that the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager update the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Conduct of City Council Meetings and Councilmembers Prepared By: Nikima Newsome, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. 20241217 16 Item - Council Rules - Hall Torosis Raskin B. Written Comments
16.M
Packet Pg. 1702
Meeting: December 17, 2024
1 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, ELLIS RASKIN, AND MAYOR PRO 2 TEMPORE CAROLINE TOROSIS
3 Request of Councilmember Hall, Councilmember Raskin, and Mayor Pro Tempore 4 Torosis that the City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Manager Update the Rules of 5 Order and Procedure, Ordinances, and Resolutions for the Conduct of City 6 Council Meetings and Councilmembers
7 Rules of Order and Procedure for the conduct of City Council meetings and 8 Councilmembers are necessary for the effective, efficient, equitable, and ethical 9 execution of public business in compliance with federal and state law, and local 10 ordinances and resolutions. First Amendment rights of the public and Councilmembers 11 must be balanced with the efficient conduct of meetings to ensure the public may 12 participate and view these meetings. For several years now, Santa Monica City Council 13 meetings have regularly continued late into the night, often past 1 a.m., and at least once 14 until past 4 a.m. While sometimes inevitable due to the volume of business, Council rules 15 and procedures can be modified to ensure Councilmembers and the public can both be 16 heard. Santa Monica stakeholders deserve a Council that operates transparently and 17 effectively, ensuring every voice has the opportunity to be heard. By clarifying procedural 18 guidelines, reducing redundancies, and prioritizing time management, Council meetings 19 can better serve both policymakers and the public. These reforms would encourage 20 greater participation by minimizing delays, offering more predictability in meeting 21 structure, and reducing barriers for residents who want to contribute but face time 22 constraints.
23 Additionally, as society and legal landscapes change, new rules and ordinances 24 must be adopted to react to changes in court rulings, government practices, and 25 Councilmember actions. For example, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 26 Snyder v. United States, it is left to states and local jurisdictions to provide legal guidance 27 to elected officials on the acceptance of gratuities. Similarly, some rules have been 28 implemented with a stated goal but, in practice, have caused an unforeseen effect (e.g. 29 Rule 28 was intended to shorten Council meetings, however it has only been 30 implemented once and instead adds time to every Council meeting). Finally, as 31 Councilmembers have interpreted the City Charter in different ways, it is incumbent upon 32 the Council to clarify interpretation, provide guidance, and empower enforcement of our 33 Charter, federal and state law, local ordinances, and Council rules. 34 We propose these rule changes and additions and any other resolution or 35 ordinance necessary to show the public this new Council’s immediate commitment to 36 efficient, equitable, and ethical government, allowing the Council to focus on addressing 37 the city’s most pressing issues with greatest impact. 38 WE THEREFORE MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL:
16.M.a
Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: 20241217 16 Item - Council Rules - Hall Torosis Raskin (6812 : Amend Council Rules) 16 ITEM BY COUNCILMEMBERS DAN HALL, ELLIS RASKIN, AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE CAROLINE TOROSIS – UPDATE THE RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE