October 8, 2019
Honorable Eric Garcetti, Mayor
Honorable Michael Feuer, City Attorney
Honorable Members of the Los Angeles City Council
Re: The High Cost of Homeless Housing: Review of Proposition HHH
Los Angeles voters approved Proposition HHH in November 2016 by an overwhelming margin,
authorizing City officials to issue up to $1.2 billion in general obligation bonds to partially subsidize
the development of up to 10,000 supportive housing units for individuals and families experiencing
homelessness. HHH funds can also be used to support new affordable housing units, temporary
shelters and service facilities. The ballot language of HHH provides that the City Controller shall
conduct a financial audit of the program each year bonds are outstanding or proceeds remain
unspent. The attached audit examines how the City is delivering on HHH to alleviate the most
pressing issue facing Los Angeles.
As of last month, the City has conditionally awarded nearly all of the funds authorized by HHH to
build 114 projects across Los Angeles, which are slated to provide a total of 5,873 supportive units
for homeless residents and another 1,767 affordable units. However, more than two years after the
first bond issuance and nearly three years since voters approved HHH, not one bond-funded unit
has opened. While 19 projects are under construction and two are scheduled to open in the coming
months, it is clear that the City’s HHH program is not keeping pace with the growing demand for
supportive housing and shelter. According to the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count,
homelessness in the City has increased by 40 percent to more than 36,000 people over the past four
years.
Increased costs, timelines
There is currently a lack of clarity surrounding the City’s goal for the number of supportive housing
units to be built using HHH funds. This review found that, regardless of the actual target, high costs
and slower than expected pre-development and construction timelines have significantly hindered
the City’s ability to achieve the ballot measure’s intentions.
Building cost estimates skyrocketed from $350,000 for a small studio or one-bedroom unit and
$414,000 for a larger unit, as projected in 2016, to a median cost of $531,000 per unit today. More
than 1,000 HHH units are projected to exceed $600,000, with one project topping $700,000 per unit.

 The cost of building many of these units exceeds the median sale price of a market-rate
condominium in the City of Los Angeles and a single-family home in Los Angeles County. Reasons
for this include the number and complexity of funding sources required to complete an HHH project,
the relatively limited pool of eligible developers, regulatory barriers and permitting challenges, and
considerable construction and labor costs. An unusually high 35 to 40 percent of costs are so-called
“soft costs” (development fees, consultants, financing, etc.), compared to just 11 percent for actual
land costs.
The high price of development is linked with elongated approval and construction timelines. HHH
projects are estimated to take between three to six years to complete — a schedule plainly out of
step with the City’s urgent need to bring tens of thousands of people off the streets and into housing.
In an attempt to speed up the pace, the City created a position to serve as a dedicated concierge for
HHH projects, a welcome step that should have been taken sooner. City leaders have also set aside
one-tenth of the bond proceeds to explore alternative housing models, such as modular homes and
shared units with simplified financing mechanisms. This strategy aims to provide 975 additional
supportive units and could lower per-unit costs, which would be positive. It remains to be seen
whether the projects will live up to expectations, and evaluating outcomes will help determine what
should be replicated and what to avoid.
Two additional financial issues of note are the premature sale of HHH bonds and the decentralized
nature of HHH accounting authority. Because the City decided to sell so many bonds long before the
proceeds would be used to build homeless housing, Los Angeles taxpayers incurred at least $5.2
million in excess interest payments through June 2019. At this time, there is also an unnecessary
division of labor in program accounting for the housing and facilities components of HHH, which
should centralized in one department.
Recommendations
In order to reduce Proposition HHH project costs and development timelines, prevent any potential
future delays, and strengthen the bond program’s financials, the City should:
●

●
●

Put a greater focus on innovative practices to save time and money, including ways to
reduce costs on approved or conditionally-approved projects, and consider using any
savings achieved for temporary shelters, bridge housing, hygiene centers and other service
facilities to address more immediate needs.
Streamline the permitting process and add needed personnel to ensure quicker development
approvals and processing.
Centralize accounting responsibility in one City department.

The recommendations in this review are intended to help the City’s Measure HHH program achieve
its voter-mandated goals, while also ensuring that valuable taxpayer dollars are managed
transparently and carefully.
Respectfully submitted,

RON GALPERIN
L.A. Controller

 LA CONTROLLER

 


Hlo
HousI
Review of

no

Cost of Homeless

Proposition 

Table of Contents
Executive Summary

2

I.

10

Proposition HHH: Results to Date

Proposition HHH Status (October 2019)

11

Cost of Proposition HHH Housing Developments

15

Timelines for Proposition HHH Housing Developments

21

Strategies to Reduce Costs and Timelines for Proposition HHH Housing
Developments

25

II.

31

Proposition HHH: FY 2018 Financial Audit

Timing of Proposition HHH Bond Issuances

31

Decentralized Accounting Authority

32

Appendix A – Proposition HHH Financial Audit Performed by
Macias, Gini & O’Connell
33
Appendix B – Proposition HHH Housing Development Data 49

1

 Executive Summary
Tens of thousands of people spend each night in Los Angeles living on the streets, in
temporary shelters, or in parked vehicles. Recently published data shows the crisis is
becoming increasingly tragic throughout the region – more than 1,000 people
experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County will likely die this year. The City,
County, and service providers have sought to address the homelessness crisis through
a combination of strategies, including street outreach and placement in temporary
shelters or supportive housing – but it has been a particularly difficult challenge.
Supportive housing is generally considered an effective strategy that combines
subsidized housing with resources such as mental and physical health services,
education and job training, and drug and alcohol treatment. Temporary shelters and
other support facilities are also important tools because they can be used as a stopgap
until housing becomes available. Getting people off the streets requires increasing the
supply of available housing units and shelter beds as quickly as possible.
Nearly 80 percent of voters approved Proposition HHH in November 2016. Proposition
HHH authorized the City to issue $1.2 billion in general obligation bonds to partially
subsidize the development of supportive housing units for individuals and families who
are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of becoming homeless. 1 Proposition HHH
funds can also be used to develop affordable (i.e., income-restricted) housing units and
facilities such as shelters, clinics, storage, and showers.2
Proposition HHH funds typically subsidize approximately 30 percent of a project’s total
development costs. On a per unit basis, the maximum allowable Proposition HHH
subsidy for supportive housing was $140,000 per unit during the most recent funding
cycle and $220,000 per unit for previous funding cycles. The remaining funding comes
from a combination of private sources and other public entities such as the federal
government, State of California, or Los Angeles County. Regardless of the funding
source, it is critical that the City and developers work together to minimize
development costs in order to build as many housing units as possible.

1

Proposition HHH tasked the Controller’s Office with performing financial audits for every year in which
bonds are outstanding, or any bond proceeds remain unspent. Appendix A includes a copy of the financial
audit that was conducted by Macias, Gini & O’Connell. The audit covers FY2018, which was the first year a
Proposition HHH bond was issued. Financial audits will be conducted for subsequent fiscal years, as
required.
2
At least 80 percent of the funds must be used for supportive housing units and facilities and up to 20
percent of Proposition HHH funds can be used to develop income-restricted units.

2

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has prioritized using Proposition HHH funds to develop long-term solutions
such as supportive and affordable housing. A much smaller share of Proposition HHH
funding has been set aside to build facilities – such as shelters – that can help mitigate
the homelessness crisis until supportive housing units are completed. 3
As of September 30, 2019, the City has conditionally awarded nearly the entire
amount authorized by the Proposition HHH ballot measure. There are additional
projects seeking conditional funding which, if approved, will commit all remaining
Proposition HHH funds.4
The City’s stated goal for the number of units to be built using Proposition HHH funds
lacks clarity. Although the number of units did not appear in the language of the ballot
measure, the development of 10,000 supportive housing units through Proposition HHH
is generally understood as the target and appears on the Mayor’s website and City
Council documents.5
In contrast, the City’s Housing and Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) –
which is tasked with administering the program – has noted that Proposition HHH was
intended to augment its ongoing efforts to build supportive housing. HCIDLA’s plan is to
deliver a total of 10,000 supportive housing units within ten years through separate
development pipelines – 7,000 through Proposition HHH and 3,000 through nonProposition HHH sources.
Assuming all of the pending projects are approved, Proposition HHH will provide 7,640
total housing units, of which 5,873 will be supportive housing.6 The following graphic
provides an overview of these projects.

3

The City’s primary strategy for emergency housing solutions is through the Mayor’s A Bridge Home
program. As of August 2019, the City has approved funds for 19 projects with a total of 1,450 beds, 247 of
which have been completed. The City is assembling funding for an additional 610 beds.
4
The City is encouraging developers of previously-approved projects to replace a portion of their
Proposition HHH commitment with funding from the County’s No Place Like Home program. To date,
these efforts have reduced overall Proposition HHH funding commitments by approximately $20 million.
The City intends to use any additional Proposition HHH funds obtained through this process to initiate
another call for projects, which would add more housing units.
5
The Mayor’s Proposition HHH overview website reads “…a $1.2 billion bond to build approximately
10,000 units of supportive housing in the City of Los Angeles.” A January 2019 City Council motion
(Council File 17-0090-S11) reads “…it was anticipated that the $1.2 billion would fund approximately
10,000 supportive housing units.”
6
This does not include approximately 975 supportive housing units anticipated through the Proposition
HHH Challenge due to uncertainty about whether each of those projects will be successful. Developers of
those projects still need to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with HCIDLA and secure locations

3

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The large majority of projects are currently – or will soon be – in various stages of “predevelopment,” which includes activities such as assembling funding, securing land use
approval, and obtaining building permits. Three years into Proposition HHH, only two
projects (117 total units, 74 supportive units) currently under construction are
scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of
Angelenos experiencing homelessness continue to suffer in dangerous conditions.
The performance of the program to date indicates that progress has been slow, and
costs are high.


The estimated timeline for completing a project from start to finish (i.e.,
conceptualization to occupancy) ranges from three to six years.



The City’s Comprehensive Homelessness Strategy (January 2016) estimated that
the cost of building each studio/one-bedroom unit would be $350,000, and the
cost of a two-bedroom unit or larger would be $414,000. While construction
costs have increased across-the-board since these estimates were developed,
the current costs far exceed the original projections.
o The current median cost per unit for projects in the Proposition HHH pipeline
is $531,373, and more than 1,000 units are projected to exceed $600,000.7
One project includes units estimated at more than $700,000.8

to build their projects. If all of these projects are completed as currently designed, there will be 6,848
supportive housing units developed through Proposition HHH.
7
These calculations do not include the 35 projects that are pending City approval.
8
The most expensive project, located in Koreatown/Pico-Union, exceeds $700,000 per unit and consists
of 41 units with a mix of studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments.

4

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
o The median cost of building many of these units approaches – and in many
cases, exceeds – the median sale price of a condominium in the City of Los
Angeles ($546,000) and of a single-family home in Los Angeles County
($627,690).
o The cost of land in Los Angeles is often
cited as a significant cost driver for
Proposition HHH housing
developments, but data provided by
the City’s Housing and Community
Investment Department (HCIDLA)
shows that this point is likely overstated
relative to the other categories for
projects currently under construction.9
Developers are spending approximately 40 percent of overall project costs
on soft cost components such as fees, consultants, and financing. These
costs are nearly as much as the cost of labor and materials to build
Proposition HHH-funded housing developments.


In July 2017, the City issued the first Proposition HHH bond ($86.4 million).
Because the program was in its early stages and projects were in predevelopment, only $3.7 million in bond proceeds were spent during that fiscal
year. Rather than spending down the available funds from the first bond
issuance, the City issued the second Proposition HHH bond (valued at $276.2
million) in July 2018.
Because the second bond was issued too early, City taxpayers incurred
approximately $5.2 million in unnecessary interest payments through June 2019
– without the expected project benefits. This concept, known as “negative
arbitrage,” occurs when the interest rate a borrower pays on its debt is higher
than the interest rate the borrower earns on the monies deposited or invested.



No single City department is responsible for program-wide Proposition HHH
accounting decisions. The lack of centralized authority may present challenges in
the future, as additional funds are spent.

9

HCIDLA noted that some financing sources do not cover the cost of land. As a result, a higher Proposition
HHH subsidy is often required to close the funding gap.

5

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are a number of factors that contribute to high costs and lengthy development
timelines, such as funding complexity, regulatory barriers, a limited pool of eligible
developers, labor costs, and cumbersome and lengthy permitting processes. Even as the
City solicited and developed ideas to tackle these issues in more innovative ways, it
continued to award Proposition HHH funds before some of the ideas could fully
blossom.


The Proposition HHH Challenge, initiated in January 2019, identified alternative
construction and financing approaches that were not previously feasible under
existing program regulations. The City recently identified six projects that aim to
provide 975 supportive housing units within approximately two years. The
proposed projects estimate unit costs between $200,000 and $479,000, and an
average of $351,965 per unit.
The projects are pending City approval and feature modular construction,
shared housing, and simplified financing. If successful, these approaches have
the potential to significantly lower costs and shorten development timelines.
Given that some of these projects are a departure from the traditional supportive
housing model, it is unclear whether future funding allocations from the State
and the federal government will embrace these innovative approaches.



The City passed the Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance in April 2018 to
reduce project costs and speed up land use approvals for Proposition HHH-funded
projects. Existing land use entitlements such as the State’s Density Bonus
program or the City’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) program can be used
to accomplish similar goals.10 However, these pathways do not account for the
unique characteristics of supportive housing projects (e.g., smaller units, space for
supportive services).
Almost immediately after the ordinance was passed, lawsuits were filed against
the City. As a result, projects in the Proposition HHH development pipeline have

10

Many projects in the Proposition HHH development pipeline were approved through TOC. A recent
lawsuit accused the City of violating the legislative procedures for amending the General Plan and zoning
ordinance when it implemented the TOC guidelines. According to the City, there is currently no court
order that prevents a previously-approved TOC project from moving forward, nor is there currently
anything preventing developers from submitting TOC applications for new projects. However, the
uncertainty caused by the litigation may cause developers already in the Proposition HHH pipeline to
pursue a different pathway to obtaining land use approval. If the changes are significant, developers may
need to re-apply for approvals from multiple funding sources, which would likely add costs and delay the
project.

6

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
been unable to take advantage of the tailored benefits offered by the
ordinance, such as higher thresholds for site plan reviews and increased
allowable density.
The City recently partnered with the State and crafted a bill (AB 1197) to make
it easier to build supportive housing and emergency shelters without fulfilling
certain requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).11
According to the City, the legislation will increase the likelihood that the lawsuit
against the Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance will be dismissed or
otherwise favorably resolved.


The Mayor’s Executive Directive #13 (issued in October 2015) sought to facilitate
streamlined and prioritized case processing for all affordable housing
developments. Despite the existence of the directive and other efforts to
expedite projects, external stakeholders and respondents to a Proposition HHH
survey (January 2019) provided critical feedback that much more work needed to
be done. One survey respondent described the City’s permitting processes as a
“nightmare.”
The City recently hired a dedicated staffer (“HHH Concierge”) to streamline
permitting processes and ensure that Proposition HHH-funded projects are
prioritized within each department’s existing workflow. In addition, the HHH
Concierge is tasked with developing a tracking system to improve information
sharing and notification protocols across City departments.
This is an encouraging development, but the City’s longstanding challenges with
these issues are well-established and suggests that this should have occurred
far sooner.

The performance of the program to date indicates that a course correction is required,
before it is too late. Although the City has conditionally awarded nearly the entire pool
of funds authorized by the ballot measure, there still may be opportunities to maximize
Proposition HHH funds. Most Proposition HHH housing developments are in the early to
middle stages of pre-development, and therefore, formal loan agreements (i.e.,
contracts) have not been executed. The absence of a contract raises an important
question – can the City reallocate funding to a different project or require developers
to modify previously-approved projects?

11

The Governor signed the bill on September 26, 2019.

7

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent events – such as the Proposition HHH Challenge and the potential of the City’s
Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance – suggest that previously-approved projects
may warrant a fresh look. Making significant changes to projects that are at the latter
stages of the pre-development process may not be feasible. However, the City should
encourage developers to emulate what has been successful in other projects and
incorporate emerging approaches to reducing Proposition HHH project costs and
development timelines.
City Policymakers should consider the following recommendations in order to confront
the growing magnitude and urgency of the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles.

Recommendation #1
Evaluate the feasibility of reallocating some Proposition HHH funds that have been
conditionally funded, especially funds committed to housing projects with outlier
development costs. This may free up funding for projects with lower per-unit costs or
for temporary shelters and other facilities.
a. If shared housing, prefabricated construction, or simplified financing are
demonstrated to be meaningful and scalable strategies through the Proposition
HHH Challenge, allow developers that have been previously awarded Proposition
HHH funding to modify their project proposals.
b. If AB 1197 facilitates timely resolution of ongoing litigation challenging the City’s
Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance, allow and encourage developers to
reconfigure previously-approved HHH projects so that the unique characteristics
of supportive housing units are incorporated into land use approvals.
c. If previously-committed Proposition HHH funding becomes available, prioritize
the development of facilities such as shelters, clinics, storage, and showers to
help better manage the immediate needs of Angelenos experiencing
homelessness.

Recommendation #2
Support the Proposition HHH Concierge’s efforts to streamline permitting and other
processes to ensure that projects that are currently – or soon will be – in the
development pipeline are completed as quickly as possible.
a. Require City departments not covered by Executive Directive #13 (e.g., Water
and Power, Fire, Engineering) to publicly and regularly report their progress on
moving Proposition HHH housing developments to completion.
8

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
b. If necessary, consider adding dedicated staff (either in City departments or on
the Housing Crisis Response Team) to focus on these issues.

Recommendation #3
City Policymakers should formally establish centralized accounting authority for the
Proposition HHH program.

9

 I.

Proposition HHH
Results to Date
The homelessness crisis in Los Angeles continues despite the City’s efforts to combat the
issue. In January 2019, the Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority’s (LAHSA) estimated
that there are 36,300 people experiencing homelessness in the City, which represents a
41 percent increase from LAHSA’s 2015 estimate.
A broad coalition of Angelenos voted to approve Proposition HHH in November 2016.
Proposition HHH authorized the City to issue up to $1.2 billion in general obligation
bonds to partially subsidize the development of supportive housing units for
individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of becoming
homeless. Supportive housing combines affordable housing with services to assist
residents, such as mental and physical health services, education and job training, and
drug and alcohol treatment.
Proposition HHH funds can also be used to develop affordable (i.e., income-restricted)
housing units and facilities such as shelters, clinics, storage, and showers. At least 80
percent of the funds must be used for supportive housing units and facilities, and up to
20 percent of Proposition HHH funds can be used to develop income-restricted units.
The City’s financing model was to leverage bond proceeds from Proposition HHH to
issue loans and help developers assemble funding from other sources. Proposition HHH
funds make up only a portion of each project’s development costs – the other sources
are private funds or tax credits and grants from the federal government, the State of
California, or Los Angeles County.12
Proposition HHH requires the Controller’s Office to perform financial audits for every
year in which bonds are outstanding, or any bond proceeds remain unspent.13 We also
assessed the City’s progress in delivering housing units in line with voter expectations. 14

12

In June 2019, the City’s Housing and Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) reported that every
dollar of Proposition HHH funds generated $2.40 in other funding sources (which includes tax credits
awarded by HCIDLA).
13
See Appendix A for a copy of the financial audit that was conducted by Macias, Gini & O’Connell on
behalf of the Controller’s Office. The audit covers FY2018, which was the first year a Proposition HHH
bond was issued. Financial audits will be conducted for subsequent fiscal years, as required.
14
See Appendix B for an overview of Proposition HHH housing developments. Proposition HHH housing
data was obtained directly from the City’s Housing and Community Investment Department and the City’s
Proposition HHH dashboard (https://hcidla.lacity.org/hhh-progress). This data was supplemented by
information included in HCIDLA staff reports, City Council Files, and recurring reports submitted to the
Proposition HHH Citizens and Administrative Oversight Committees.

10

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
Specifically, we sought to answer three questions as part of this review.


Why do Proposition HHH housing developments cost so much?



Why are Proposition HHH housing developments taking so long to complete?



What should the City do?

The recommendations in this report are intended to help the City confront the
magnitude and urgency of the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles.

PROPOSITION HHH STATUS (OCTOBER 2019)
As of September 30, 2019, the City has allocated nearly the entire amount authorized
by the Proposition HHH ballot measure. There are additional projects seeking
conditional funding which, if approved, will commit all remaining Proposition HHH
funds.15
The City’s stated goal for the number of units to be built using Proposition HHH funds
lacks clarity. Although a specific number of units did not appear in the language of the
ballot measure, the development of 10,000 supportive housing units through
Proposition HHH is generally understood as the target and appears on the Mayor’s
website and City Council documents.16
In contrast, the City’s Housing and Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) –
which is tasked with administering the program – has noted that Proposition HHH was
intended to augment ongoing efforts to build supportive housing. HCIDLA’s plan is to
deliver a total of 10,000 supportive housing units within ten years through separate
development pipelines – 7,000 through Proposition HHH and 3,000 through nonProposition HHH sources.

15

The City is encouraging developers of previously-approved projects to replace a portion of their
Proposition HHH commitment with funding from the County’s No Place Like Home program. To date,
these efforts have reduced overall Proposition HHH funding commitments by approximately $20 million.
The City intends to use any additional Proposition HHH funds obtained through this process to initiate
another call for projects, which would add more housing units.
16
For example, the Mayor’s Proposition HHH overview website reads “…a $1.2 billion bond to build
approximately 10,000 units of supportive housing in the City of Los Angeles.” A January 2019 City Council
motion (Council File 17-0090-S11) reads “…it was anticipated that the $1.2 billion would fund
approximately 10,000 supportive housing units.”

11

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
Assuming all of the pending projects are approved, Proposition HHH will provide 7,640
total housing units, of which 5,873 will be supportive housing.17 Our growing homeless
population requires building more units as quickly as possible.
The City has allocated nearly all of the authorized Proposition HHH funds to developing
long-term solutions such as supportive and affordable housing. Significantly less
Proposition HHH funding has been set aside to build or acquire facilities (e.g., shelters,
storage, transitional housing, navigation centers) that can help mitigate the
homelessness crisis until housing units are completed.

Status of Proposition HHH housing developments
As of September 30, 2019, the City’s Housing and Community Investment Department
(HCIDLA) reports that almost $800 million has been committed to housing
developments and the projects pending approval will push the City beyond $1 billion in
total Proposition HHH funding commitments. However, most projects that received –
or will receive – funding commitments have not been formally awarded loans using
Proposition HHH funds and have not yet begun construction.

The City’s process for committing Proposition HHH funds is divided into multiple phases
and requires several layers of review and approval. HCIDLA issues a call for proposals
three times a year to solicit proposals from developers seeking to build supportive

17

This does not include approximately 975 supportive housing units funded through the Proposition HHH
Challenge due to uncertainty about whether each of those projects will be successful. Developers of those
projects still need to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with HCIDLA and secure locations to
build their projects. If all of these projects are completed as currently designed, Proposition HHH will
provide approximately 6,848 supportive units. The Proposition HHH Challenge will be discussed in greater
detail later in this report.

12

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
housing with Proposition HHH funds. HCIDLA staff reviews applications to determine
whether they met established criteria, including:


verification that the developer secured a property on which a Proposition HHH
project could be built;



a determination that the project is financially feasible and demonstrates longterm viability as an affordable housing project; and



confirmation that the developer and service provider successfully managed
similar supportive housing projects in the past.

All supportive and affordable units funded by Proposition HHH are subject to a 55year affordability covenant to ensure that they are restricted to the target population.
Proposition HHH regulations require all units have their own kitchen and full bathroom.
In addition, housing developments must include community spaces and offices to allow
for the provision of supportive services. Beyond these requirements, Proposition HHH
program priorities encourage developers to build in a diverse range of locations that
reflect the City’s fair housing goals and within one-half mile of major transit stops and
supportive facilities.
At the conclusion of this process, HCIDLA staff develop funding recommendations that
are submitted to multiple oversight committees, the City Council, and Mayor.18

18

The Proposition HHH Citizens Oversight Committee is comprised of four members appointed by the
Mayor and three members appointed by the City Council. The committee is tasked with: (1) reviewing and
proposing expenditures of bond proceeds under HHH; and (2) advising and making recommendations to
the AOC on items relating to HHH, including policies and projects. The Proposition HHH Administrative
Oversight Committee is comprised of the Mayor, the City Administrative Officer, and the Chief Legislative
Analyst, or their respective designees. This committee is tasked with making recommendations to the
Council about the expenditure of bond proceeds as well as HHH policies and projects.

13

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
HCIDLA evaluates project feasibility, determines compliance with
Proposition HHH program regulations, drafts project summary
reports, and issues funding recommendations.
Proposition HHH Citizens Oversight Committee (COC) reviews
HCIDLA's recommendations, proposes any necessary changes,
and determines which projects should move forward.
Proposition HHH Administrative Oversight Committee (AOC)
considers COC's recommendations, proposes any necessary
changes, and determines which projects should move forward.
The City Council considers the AOC's recommendations and
votes on which projects should move forward.
Funding recommendations are submitted to the Mayor for
approval.

Each project selected through this initial phase receives a letter of commitment from
the City. Letters of commitment provide developers with a two-year conditional
funding award that is contingent on factors such as ongoing compliance with
Proposition HHH regulations and obtaining the necessary funding from other sources
to fully fund the completion of a project. The City designed the Proposition HHH
program to provide letters of commitment early in the development process in order
to improve developers’ ability to compete for funding from non-City sources.
Once developers assemble funding, obtain land use approvals, and are ready to move
toward construction, their projects are subject to another round of review and approval
– using the same general sequence outlined above – in order to be added to the City’s
annual Proposition HHH Project Expenditure Plan (PEP). Projects must be added to the
PEP before the City and developer can execute a formal loan agreement (i.e., contract)
that authorizes the expenditure of Proposition HHH funds.
Understanding the distinction between the legal authority provided through each of
these documents (i.e., letters of commitment and loan agreements) is critical to
evaluating the City’s potential options for projects that have been conditionally funded.
Most Proposition HHH housing projects are in the early or middle development stages,
and therefore, formal loan agreements have not been executed. The absence of a
contract raises an important question – can the City reallocate funding to a different
project or require developers to modify previously-approved projects? Although this
may result in legal action by the affected developer, there may be opportunities to
better utilize Proposition HHH funding.
14

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE

Status of Proposition HHH facilities projects
The City Administrative Officer (CAO) – who oversees the facilities portion of the
Proposition HHH program – recently requested an additional $10.5 million in funding,
which would increase the total budget for facilities projects to $60 million. The CAO
stated the funding shortfall was caused by higher than anticipated construction costs for
four facilities projects that are being managed by the City’s General Services
Department (GSD).19
If the request is approved (along with the pending housing developments), the
additional funding will push the total amount of Proposition HHH funding commitments
beyond the $1.2 billion originally authorized by voters. The CAO’s proposed plan is to
make up for the shortfall by using current and future interest proceeds that accrue after
Proposition HHH bonds are issued.
Although the City allocated some of the Proposition HHH facilities funding for
emergency housing solutions such as shelters and transitional housing, the City’s
primary strategy for adding beds is through the Mayor’s A Bridge Home (ABH)
program. The program was launched in April 2018 and sought to build crisis and bridge
housing – primarily on land owned or leased by the City – until permanent supportive
housing projects are completed.
The City has approved approximately $90 million for the construction and multiyear
operation of a total of 1,450 beds, of which 247 have been completed.20 In addition, the
City is in the process of allocating $34 million for bridge housing projects that will
provide an additional 610 beds.

COST OF PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Proposition HHH funds represent approximately 30 percent of the aggregate total
development cost across projects that have been approved by the City. On a per unit
basis, the maximum allowable Proposition HHH subsidy for supportive housing was
$140,000 per unit during the most recent funding cycle and $220,000 per unit for
previous funding cycles. Although the City is not fully subsidizing each project,
significant amounts of funding come from private sources or other government entities.

19
20

GSD staff, labor from hiring halls, and preapproved subcontractors are working on these projects.
Operating costs for four of these projects are being supported by the County or other non-City sources.

15

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
These resources are finite; it is critical that the City and developers minimize
development costs in order to build as many housing units as possible.
The City’s Comprehensive Homelessness Strategy (January 2016) estimated that the
cost of building each studio/one-bedroom supportive housing unit would be $350,000
and a two-bedroom unit or larger would cost $414,000.21 While construction costs
have increased across-the-board since these estimates were developed, the current
costs far exceed the original projections.
Whether building market rate or supportive housing, development costs are typically
driven by three major components: cost of acquiring land; labor and materials for
construction; and soft costs (e.g., non-construction activities such as architectural,
engineering, financing, legal services).
The Proposition HHH program regulations include multiple tools intended to contain
costs throughout the development process.


HCIDLA is tasked with approving all contracts related to Proposition HHH
projects and has the authority to disallow any costs which it believes to be
excessive, avoidable, or unwarranted.



Developers and general contractors are required to award construction contracts
through a competitive process that considers the cost.22



Within 60 days of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City, developers
must submit a completed audit of construction costs performed by an
independent Certified Public Accountant.

21

The estimates are attributed to LAHSA in an October 2015 report to the Mayor and City Council (Council
File 15-1091). The $350,000 per unit estimate was also cited in news reports at the time of the November
2016 ballot initiative. Gale Holland, “L.A. Officials Launch Campaign for Homeless Housing Bond
Measure,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2016, https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lnhomeless-bond-kickoff-20160912-snap-story.html; Doug Smith, “Q&A: Proposition HHH Would Raise
Funds to Build Homeless Housing in L.A.,” Los Angeles Times, October 19, 2016,
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-prop-hhh-qa-20161017-snap-story.html; A Martinez,
“10 Things You Need to Know About Measure HHH,” 89.3 KPCC, November 11, 2016,
https://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2016/11/04/52952/10-things-you-need-to-know-aboutmeasure-hhh/.
22
Developers who have not identified a general contractor at the time of application must conduct a
competitive bidding process using a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and award a contract based on price
and other criteria. General contractors who are identified a part of the project team at the time of
application must provide at least three subcontractor bids for each major trade such as carpentry,
electrical, and plumbing.

16

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
Despite these tools, projected per-unit costs remain high. The median cost of building
these units ($531,373) approaches – and in many cases, exceeds – the median sale price
of a condominium in the City of Los Angeles ($546,000) and a single-family home in Los
Angeles County ($627,690).23

Cost of housing developments under construction
Almost three years after voters approved Proposition HHH, only 19 projects are under
construction. When completed, these developments will provide 1,260 total units, 892
of which are supportive housing units.
According to data provided by HCIDLA, more than 90 percent of the units under
construction are compact studios and one-bedroom apartments ranging from 275 to
750 square feet. The data below provides additional details about these projects.






Total development cost
Lowest

Average

Highest

$11,440,379

$34,607,610

$55,050,829

Lowest

Average

Highest

$346,678

$521,861

$690,692

Per-unit development cost24

Cost breakdown – The cost of land in Los
Angeles has been cited as a significant factor in
the high cost of Proposition HHH projects, but
the data shows that this is overstated relative
to the other categories.25 As a result, finding
ways to lower construction costs and soft
costs is critical to maximizing the impact of
Proposition HHH funding.

23

Zillow, Los Angeles Home Prices and Values, https://www.zillow.com/los-angeles-ca/home-values/;
California Association of Realtors, California Housing Market Update: Monthly Sales and Price Statistics
August 2019, https://www.car.org/marketdata/data/countysalesactivity.
24
The average cost per unit was calculated by using the total development cost of projects under
construction ($657,544,591) and dividing it by the total number of units (1,260) in those projects.
25
HCIDLA noted that some financing sources do not cover the cost of land. As a result, a higher
Proposition HHH subsidy is often required to close the funding gap.

17

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
The high level of soft costs indicates that developers are spending large amounts
on non-construction activities such as fees, consultants, and financing costs. The
overall magnitude of construction costs underscores the importance of
identifying alternate models such as pre-fabricated or shared housing.


The total development cost of projects under construction has increased by 12
percent since receiving the City’s conditional commitment, and five projects
increased by more than 25 percent.26 These cost increases underscore the
importance of getting units built as quickly as possible.

Cost of projects in pre-development
There are an additional 60 projects that have been conditionally funded by the City, and
are in various stages of pre-development and have not yet begun construction. Predevelopment includes activities such as applying for funding, securing land use
approvals, engaging the community, and obtaining permits – many of which occur
concurrently.
When completed, these projects will provide 4,150 total units, of which 3,240 will be
supportive housing. Similar to the projects under construction, the large majority (82
percent) of the total units are compact studio or one-bedroom apartments.


Total development cost
Lowest

Average

Highest

$9,440,000

$35,058,859

$72,022,642

Given that many of these projects are in the early stages of a lengthy process, it
is likely that total development costs will be even higher by the time
construction begins.


Per-unit development cost27
Lowest

Average

Highest

$228,908

$511,386

$701,072

26

These estimates were calculated by comparing the original total development cost listed in each
project’s HCIDLA staff report to updated costs provided by HCIDLA in August 2019. The number of units
for each project in this analysis remained the same during this period.
27
The average per unit development cost was calculated by using the total development cost of projects
in pre-development ($2,122,251,550) and dividing it by the total number of units (4,150) in those
projects.

18

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
There are 15 housing developments in this group that exceed $600,000 per unit.
The most expensive project, located in Koreatown/Pico-Union, exceeds $700,000
per unit and consists of 41 units with a mix of studios, one-, two-, and threebedroom apartments.


The projected cost breakdown for these housing developments is approximately
11% land, 54% construction, and 35% soft costs.

Cost of housing developments pending City approval
The City is considering issuing conditional funding commitments to an additional 35
housing developments.28 If approved, these projects would provide 2,230 total housing
units, of which 1,741 would be supportive units. More than 80 percent of these units
are studios and one-bedroom apartments.


Total development cost
Lowest

Average

Highest

$11,657,496

$31,841,156

$61,952,493

Given that many of these projects are in the early stages of a lengthy process, it
is likely that total development costs will be even higher by the time
construction begins.


Per-unit development cost29
Lowest

Average

Highest

$333,071

$499,749

$686,443

Four housing developments in this group that exceed $600,000 per unit.

28

One of these projects was initiated outside the traditional call for projects model in order to identify an
innovative approach to building housing on a City-owned property located at 11010 Santa Monica Blvd.
For purposes of this analysis, this project was included. In addition, Council Districts 8 and 12 recently
requested 30-day delays for three projects located within their districts, in order to conduct additional
community outreach. For purposes of this analysis, these projects were included.
29
The average per unit development cost was calculated by using the total development cost of projects
pending Council approval ($1,114,440,463) and dividing it by the total number of units (2,230) in those
projects.

19

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE

QUESTION 1:

Why do Proposition HHH housing developments
cost so much?

Although implementing a program of this magnitude and complexity carries inherent
uncertainty, the original per unit cost projections ($350,000 to $414,000) have been
inaccurate. City officials and other stakeholders have cited the following as factors
contributing to the high cost of projects funded through Proposition HHH.


Funding complexity – In addition to Proposition HHH funds, developers typically
assemble several loans and grants to fully fund a project. On average, each
development approved by the City had seven funding sources (including
Proposition HHH). The complexity of this model adds costs and delays housing
production because each funding source has its own set of policy priorities and
approval timelines.



Regulatory framework – Projects built using public subsidies typically include
requirements that can increase soft costs due to the need for additional
consulting services to address legal or accounting issues. In addition, projects
built using Proposition HHH funds can incur higher construction costs due to
accessibility requirements – each project must include at least 4 percent of units
set aside for persons with sensory impairments and 10 percent of units for
persons with mobility impairments.
Developers, general contractors, and subcontractors may instead choose to
pursue market-rate projects that yield greater profits, thereby shrinking the
overall pool of available firms and driving up costs.



Limited pool of eligible developers – Proposition HHH regulations require lead
developers to demonstrate a history of building and managing supportive housing
projects. This reduces the overall level of risk and increases the likelihood that
projects funded by the City are successful.
However, this requirement can also impede competition and prevent developers
from outside the traditional supportive housing community – who may bring new
and innovative ideas – from participating.



Labor costs – Projects built using Proposition HHH funds are subject to State
Prevailing Wage Requirements. In addition, housing developments of 65 or more
units must include a project labor agreement that promotes the hiring and

20

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
continued employment of local residents, including those that may be classified
as transitional or disadvantaged workers.

TIMELINES FOR PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS
Like most business endeavors, time is money when it comes to property development.
HCIDLA estimates that the timeline for completing a Proposition HHH project from start
to finish (i.e., conceptualization to occupancy) ranges from three to six years. The length
of time needed to complete these projects does not meet the level of urgency needed
to match the magnitude of our homelessness crisis.
The timeline below identifies significant milestones since Proposition HHH was
approved by City voters in November 2016. Assuming it is completed on time, the first
project will have taken nearly three years and may represent a best-case scenario
because it was already in the HCIDLA development pipeline at the time of the ballot
measure.

Timelines for housing developments under construction
In order to estimate timelines, we measured the length of time from when projects
were conditionally approved by the City to the estimated construction completion date.
These estimates do not include time spent on activities before applications were
submitted to HCIDLA, or time spent on required tasks after the completion of
construction (e.g., closing out the project and obtaining a certificate of occupancy).
21

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE


Timeline from conditional approval to the projected end of construction (years)
Fastest

Average

Slowest

1.9

2.8

3.5



Although these projects will add 1,260 much-needed housing units in the coming
years, the pace at which they are
being completed falls significantly
short of the urgency of the City’s
homelessness crisis.



More than 90 percent of these
units are located in seven Council
Districts (1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14).

Timelines for projects in pre-development
The upcoming completion of the initial wave of Proposition HHH housing developments
presents an opportunity for the City to apply lessons learned and ensure that future
supportive housing projects can be built more quickly. However, the estimated timelines
(measured from conditional approval to estimated completion of construction) for the
60 projects currently in pre-development indicate that these projects will likely take
even longer to complete.


Timeline from conditional approval to the projected end of construction (years)
Fastest

Average

Slowest

2.1

3.0

3.7



Most of the 4,150 units in predevelopment are not projected for
completion until 2021.



Almost 70 percent of these units are
located in Council Districts 1, 8, 9,
11, 13, and 14.

22

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE

Timelines for projects pending City approval
Because these projects have not yet been
approved by the City, it is not possible to
develop timeline estimates using the
same methodology as the previous
sections. When completed, 70 percent of
the 2,230 total units will be distributed
across Council Districts 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11,
and 13.

Potential future delays for projects in pre-development
The City encouraged developers to build Proposition HHH housing developments near
high-quality transit areas through the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program. The
TOC concept was also approved by voters in November 2016, within the larger
framework of Measure JJJ. TOC allows developers to add density, reduce parking
requirements, and utilize ministerial (i.e., administrative) approvals in exchange for
including supportive or income-restricted housing units. Accordingly, many projects in
the Proposition HHH development pipeline were approved through TOC.
A recent lawsuit accused the City of violating the legislative procedures for amending
the General Plan and zoning ordinance when it implemented the TOC guidelines.
According to the City, there is currently no court order that prevents a previouslyapproved TOC project from moving forward, nor is there currently anything preventing
developers from submitting TOC applications for new projects.
However, the uncertainty caused by the litigation may cause developers already in the
Proposition HHH pipeline to pursue a different pathway to obtaining land use
approval. For example, a developer that has already received approval through TOC
may decide to modify their project and utilize the State’s density bonus program, or a
different entitlement pathway. This would likely require the developer to obtain a new
approval from the Department of City Planning. If the changes are significant,
developers may need to re-apply for approvals from multiple funding sources, which
would likely add costs and delay the project.

23

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE

QUESTION #2: Why are Proposition HHH housing
developments taking so long to complete?
Many of the cost drivers outlined in the previous section also contribute to extended
timelines, just as extended timelines contribute to higher development costs. The City
has initiated a number of strategies – such as the Permanent Supportive Housing
Ordinance and Executive Directive #13 (“Support for Affordable Housing Development”)
– to speed up the process by which Proposition HHH housing developments can be
built.30 Beyond those efforts, departmental liaisons are tasked with troubleshooting
issues as they arise. However, the lengthy development timelines suggest that much
more work is needed.
A major factor is the design of the program itself – Proposition HHH funds are
awarded at the very early stages of the development process, and the developer must
seek out and obtain the necessary funding to begin the project. Because developers
are often seeking funding from other public entities with varying deadlines, the City
provides up to two years to complete this phase. Projects cannot proceed without the
necessary funding in place to successfully build and operate supportive housing.
Beyond obtaining funding, there are the permitting and approval processes that apply
to any development project in the City. Developers must navigate departments such as
City Planning, Building and Safety, Water and Power, Fire, and Public Works
(Engineering and Contract Administration) to ensure that safe, high-quality projects are
built in accordance with all applicable regulations. Ensuring this framework operates
efficiently and effectively is critical to the City’s efforts to reduce Proposition HHH
development timelines.
At the request of the Proposition HHH Citizens Oversight Committee, the City initiated a
survey in late 2018 to obtain feedback from stakeholders about how to improve the
Proposition HHH Supportive Housing Program. The City received 34 responses, and
more than half were from developers who build affordable and market-rate housing.
The most frequent recommendation was for the City to streamline permitting processes
across the various departments that are involved with reviewing and approving
Proposition HHH housing projects. One respondent described the City’s permitting
processes as a “nightmare.”

30

The Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance and Executive Directive #13 will be discussed in greater
detail later in this report.

24

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
The Proposition HHH Citizens Oversight Committee and external stakeholders have
called on the City to make improvements in these areas. As described below, the City
recently took steps to build upon its ongoing efforts.

STRATEGIES TO REDUCE COSTS AND EXPEDITE TIMELINES
FOR PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Effectively implementing a program of this magnitude requires extensive planning and
the ability to pause and, if necessary, pivot to a different approach before the
available funding is depleted. All viable alternatives need to be weighed against the
growing urgency of our homelessness crisis.
As early as the middle of 2017, it was apparent that the cost of building Proposition HHH
housing developments was higher than expected, and other issues were contributing to
lengthy timelines. The City took action and identified ways to streamline processes,
reduce development costs, and foster innovation. But instead of waiting until those
promising strategies could be fully implemented or other obstacles were removed, the
City conditionally awarded nearly all of the remaining Proposition HHH funding.
The strategies outlined below do not represent the entirety of the City’s efforts to
reduce costs and timelines. However, they have significant potential and may prove to
be beneficial in the future using state and federal funding streams such as the No Place
Like Home Program and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. But those funding
streams have their own regulations, and it is unclear whether the City will be able to
unilaterally determine how those funds can be spent.
Given these constraints, the City’s decision to push forward and conditionally award
nearly all remaining funds represents a missed opportunity to maximize the impact of
Proposition HHH.

Proposition HHH Challenge
In response to growing concerns from the Citizens Oversight Committee, the City set
aside $120 million in January 2019 and initiated the Proposition HHH Housing
Challenge. The primary goal was to identify innovative construction and financing
models to produce 1,000 new supportive housing units in less than two years.
The City issued a request for proposals in May 2019 and allowed respondents to submit
project applications before obtaining site control. In order to be considered for funding,
applicants needed to demonstrate that their proposed approach is not eligible or
25

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
feasible under current Proposition HHH program regulations. Development strategies
submitted by applicants were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team of subject matter
experts for creativity, achievability, and scalability.
The City recently selected six projects that aim to provide 975 supportive housing units
at an estimated cost between $200,000 and $479,000 per unit, and an average of
$351,965 per unit. The projects approved by the City include modular construction,
shared housing, and simplified financing. Although the long-term feasibility of these
innovative approaches remains to be seen, they have the potential to significantly
lower costs and shorten development timelines.
The strategies outlined by the selected developers are promising; however, there is
some uncertainty about whether they will all successfully reach the finish line. Each
developer still needs to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with HCIDLA and
secure a location to build their projects before they can proceed. Given that some of
these projects are a departure from the traditional supportive housing model, it is
unclear whether future funding allocations from the State and the federal government
will embrace these innovative approaches.
The City’s plan to conduct an outside evaluation of the process and outcomes associated
with the Proposition HHH Challenge will improve the ability to replicate successes and
apply lessons from unsuccessful projects.

Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance
The City initiated an effort to make changes to its zoning code to reduce project costs
and speed up land use approvals for Proposition HHH-funded projects. Existing land use
entitlements such as the State’s Density Bonus program or the City’s Transit-Oriented
Communities (TOC) program can be used to accomplish similar goals. However, these
pathways do not account for the unique characteristics of supportive housing projects
(e.g., smaller units, space for supportive services).
In April 2018, the City passed the Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance. Key
components of the ordinance are outlined below.


Facilitate ministerial approvals and increase the threshold that triggers site plan
reviews from 50 units to 120 units (200 units in the Greater Downtown Housing
Incentive Area). Site plan review can increase the time needed to begin
construction, create uncertainty, and increase total project costs due to time
delays.

26

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
In addition, the Department of City Planning noted that the 50 unit threshold has
historically pushed some developers to reduce their projects to 49 units or less in
order to avoid site plan reviews, even though the zoning capacity allows for
additional units.


Increase the number of permanent supportive housing units that can be built by
easing zoning restrictions that cause projects consisting entirely of studio
apartments to reach their density limit before they fully maximize the amount of
buildable space.



Ensure that space used for supportive services and community gathering areas
within each housing development do not count toward total allowable floor area
(FAR) restrictions.



Reduce development costs by eliminating the requirement to build parking
spaces for supportive housing units. Vehicle ownership is significantly lower
among the target population, and removing the requirement can save tens of
thousands of dollars per parking space, especially those located in
underground garages.31

Shortly after the ordinance was approved, two lawsuits were filed by community groups
claiming that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Given
the uncertainty caused by the lawsuits, Proposition HHH permanent supportive
housing projects have been unable to take advantage of the tailored benefits offered
by the ordinance
The City recently partnered with the State and crafted a bill (AB 1197) to make it easier
to build supportive housing and emergency shelters without fulfilling certain CEQA
requirements. According to the City, the legislation will increase the likelihood that the
lawsuit against the Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance will be dismissed or
otherwise favorably resolved. The bill was signed by the Governor on September 26,
2019.

31

The target population is defined as “persons with qualifying lower incomes who: (i) have one or more
disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, and
are homeless as defined by any Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, State of California, or Federal
guidelines; or (ii) are chronically homeless, as defined by any Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, State
of California, or Federal guidelines.”

27

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE

Executive Directive #13 and Proposition HHH Concierge
The Mayor issued Executive Directive #13 (ED13) in October 2015 to facilitate
streamlined and prioritized case processing for all affordable housing developments.
Although it was issued before Proposition HHH, the strategies outlined within ED13
apply to supportive housing developments. Three departments were included in ED13 –
City Planning, Building and Safety, and HCIDLA.
Despite the existence of ED13 and other efforts to expedite projects, external
stakeholders and respondents to the Proposition HHH survey completed in January
2019 provided critical feedback that indicated more needed to be done.


Expand the scope of authority of Executive Directive 13 by establishing priority
case processing in other City departments such as Engineering, Department of
Water and Power, and Fire Department.



Increase the number of dedicated staff across multiple departments to shepherd
supportive housing projects through the approvals process.



Create a “one-stop-shop” for all permanent supportive housing projects. This
interdepartmental task force would help expedite and prioritize permitting.

The City recently received a $1.5 million grant from United Way of Greater Los Angeles
to create and fund the Housing Crisis Response Team within the Mayor’s Office of
Citywide Homeless Initiatives. The funding covers a three-year period, and the team’s
primary function is to oversee and implement the Proposition HHH Challenge.
The grant also provided funding for the establishment of an Affordable Housing
Production Manager position (also referred to as the “HHH Concierge”). The HHH
Concierge is responsible for designing policies and coordinating with HCIDLA staff,
developers, and City departments to move projects to completion. In addition, the
HHH Concierge is tasked with the development of a tracking system to improve
information sharing and notification protocols across City departments.
The establishment of this position is encouraging and increases the likelihood that the
60 projects currently in pre-development will begin and complete construction as
quickly as possible. However, given the City’s longstanding challenges in these areas, it
is unclear why this did not occur sooner.

28

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE

QUESTION #3: What should the City do?
The performance of the program to date (i.e., high costs and lengthy development
timelines) suggests that a course correction is required. Proposition HHH will
eventually increase the overall supply of permanent supportive housing, but the City’s
decision to conditionally award nearly all of the remaining funds without taking
advantage of some of the strategies outlined above may represent a missed
opportunity.
Recent developments indicate that some Proposition HHH funds that have been
conditionally awarded may warrant a fresh look, either today or in the future. For
example, the Proposition HHH Challenge has the potential to significantly reduce perunit development costs and complete construction within two years. In comparison, the
City’s traditional approach provides developers with two years to assemble funding.
Similarly, developers who previously obtained land use entitlements may benefit from
the Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance, if it becomes available.
Most Proposition HHH housing projects are in the early or middle pre-development
stages, and therefore, formal loan agreements have not been executed. This may
provide an opportunity to reevaluate planned construction and financing activities.
Making significant changes to projects that are at the latter stages of the predevelopment process may not be feasible. However, the City should encourage
developers to emulate what has been successful in other projects and incorporate
emerging approaches to reducing Proposition HHH project costs and development
timelines.
City Policymakers should consider the following recommendations in order to maximize
the impact of Proposition HHH funds.

Recommendation #1
Evaluate the feasibility of reallocating some Proposition HHH funds that have been
conditionally funded, especially funds committed to housing projects with outlier
development costs. This may free up funding for projects with lower per-unit costs or
for temporary shelters and other facilities.
a. If shared housing, prefabricated construction, or simplified financing are
demonstrated to be meaningful and scalable strategies through the Proposition
HHH Challenge, allow developers that have been previously awarded Proposition
HHH funding to modify their project proposals.

29

 PROPOSITION HHH - RESULTS TO DATE
b. If AB 1197 facilitates timely resolution of ongoing litigation challenging the City’s
Permanent Supportive Housing Ordinance, allow and encourage developers to
reconfigure previously-approved HHH projects so that the unique characteristics
of supportive housing units are incorporated into land use approvals.
c. If previously-committed Proposition HHH funding becomes available, prioritize
the development of facilities such as shelters, clinics, storage, and showers to
help better manage the immediate needs of Angelenos experiencing
homelessness.

Recommendation #2
Support the Proposition HHH Concierge’s efforts to streamline permitting and other
processes to ensure that projects that are currently – or will soon be – in the
development pipeline are completed as quickly as possible.
a. Require City departments not covered by Executive Directive #13 (e.g., Water
and Power, Fire, Engineering) to publicly and regularly report their progress on
moving Proposition HHH housing developments to completion.
b. If necessary, consider adding dedicated staff (either in City departments or on
the Housing Crisis Response Team) to focus on these issues.

30

 II.

Proposition HHH
FY2018 Financial Audit
Proposition HHH tasks the Controller’s Office with performing financial audits for every
year in which bonds are outstanding, or any bond proceeds remain unspent. The
financial audit for FY2018 did not identify any significant irregularities or improprieties;
however, there are two specific issues that needed to be resolved.
We will continue to monitor these issues moving forward and conduct subsequent
financial audits, as required.

TIMING OF PROPOSITION HHH BOND ISSUANCES
As part of our review, we found that the City issued a Proposition HHH bond too early
and incurred debt before projects were ready to begin using the funds.
The City issued its first Proposition HHH bond ($86,370,000) in July 2017. Due to the
length of time it takes for projects to begin construction, only $3,676,308 was actually
spent during that fiscal year. Rather than spending down the remaining available funds
from the initial bond issuance, the City subsequently issued another bond
($276,200,000) in July 2018. As of June 30, 2019, the City spent only $26.8 million of the
first bond and $35.7 million of the second bond.32
While the City Administrative Officer’s (CAO) Debt Management Group sought to issue
the 2018 Proposition HHH bond in order to have funds available for a speedy rollout of
planned projects, it is challenging to predict when bond proceeds will be needed for
actual disbursement. Conditional commitments of Proposition HHH funds are made early
in the process, and developers must secure additional funding and successfully navigate
the City’s permitting framework before the loan is executed and construction begins. As
a result, only a small portion of the available Proposition HHH bond proceeds have
actually been spent.
Although the City is currently earning an estimated average annualized rate of 1.80% for
the unused HHH bond proceeds, it is paying approximately 3.45% for Proposition HHHissued bonds, resulting in an estimated loss of 1.64%.33 As of June 30, 2019, the July
2018 bond issuance triggered an estimated $5.2 million in early net interest expense

32

This data was extracted from the City’s Financial Management System (FMS).
This concept is known as “negative arbitrage” and occurs when the interest rate a borrower pays on its
debt is higher than the interest rate the borrower earns on the monies deposited or invested.
33

31

 PROPOSITION HHH – FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT
(estimated interest expense to be paid to bondholders less estimated interest earned
on the issued bond proceeds) being incurred by City property taxpayers.
Going forward, the City should spend down proceeds from these previously-issued
bonds and evaluate whether there are enough projects that are likely to begin
construction before another Proposition HHH bond is issued. The City acknowledged
these issues and decided to forego issuing an additional Proposition HHH bond in 2019.

DECENTRALIZED ACCOUNTING AUTHORITY
Another issue we identified during the FY2017-18 financial audit was a structural
weakness where no single City department is responsible for program-wide accounting
decisions.
HCIDLA is responsible for managing the housing component of the Proposition HHH
program, as well as fulfilling the corresponding accounting activities. However,
administration of the facilities component of the Proposition HHH program is split
between the Office of the City Administrative Officer, which oversees program
operations, and the Board of Public Works Office of Accounting, which is responsible for
accounting-related activities.
This arrangement caused confusion during the audit, demonstrated a lack of
consistent understanding of the departments’ roles and responsibilities, and created
unnecessary financial risk. We recommended clarifying this process, and the City made
some improvements. However, the lack of centralized accounting authority remains and
may present problems in the future, as additional funds are spent.

Recommendation #3
City Policymakers should formally establish centralized accounting authority for the
Proposition HHH program.

32

 Appendix A FY2018 Financial Audit

 

RON ?Alp?3m

 

 

CITY DIE LUIS .LWGELES, 
PRGPOSHIDN BEE 
(Speeial Revenue fund, Capital Pl'ejeets Innti and
Debt Service fund of the
City.~ of Les Angeli-s]:

Independent Auditor?s Reports
and Financial Statements

From Inception tn June 30. 2013

 

 

Certi?ed
Public
Accnu?tdnu

33

APPENDIX A 

FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY LCIS AFGELES, 

F0: the Year Ended June 30: 21313

Table nffomems

Independentlud?ttnr?a Repart

financial Statements:

Page

Balance Sheet 3

Statement of Revenues, Expenditutes. and Changes in Fund Balance 4

Notes to the Financial Statements 5
Other Report:

Independent Auditat' 5 Repeat an Internal Contra-1 Deer
Financial Reporting and on and Other Matters
Based on an Audit nf Financial Statements Performed in

Accmdance with Gm'emmemdad?ing Standard:

RON 

13

34

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

Eel 
Futllr:
Accountants

IndependentAuditor?s Report

CityConocil
City of Los Angeles, California

Report on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying ?nancial statements of the Proposition HEB Special Eevnnrethd,
Capital Projects Fund and Debt Service Fund {collectively the ?Funds?; of the City of Los Angeles,
California {City}, as of and for the year ended. ere and the related notes to the ?nancial
statements, as listed in the table of contents.

Management?s Responsibilityfor tire F?roneiol Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair [sesentation of these ?nancial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America: this includes
thedesigu, 
presentation of ?nancial statements that are free from. material misstatement, whether due to fraud or
corn.

Auditor?s 

Dru responsibility is to express an opinion on ?iese ?nancial statements based on our audit We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
Anterica and the standards applicable to ?nancial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United Stams. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the ?nancial statements are ?ne from material
misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the ?nancial statements The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the
assessment ofthe risks ofmaterial misstatement of the ?nancial statements, whether due to ?aud or error.
Inmalring those risk assessments, the auditor considers intinnal control relevantto the entity?s preparation
thatare appropriatein
the circtunstances, but not for the purpose of an opinion on the effectiveness ofthe entity's
internal control. Accordingly, we espress no such opinion. An audit also evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of signi?cant accounting estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation ofthe ?nancial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is suf?cient and approtuiate to provide a basis for
our audit opinionAPPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

?pt'nt'on

In our opinion. the ?nancial statements referred to above present fairly. in all material respects. the ?nancial
position of the Proposition Special Revenue Fund. Capital Projects Fimd and Debt Service Fund as of
Tune 30. l?lE. and the changes in ?nancial position thereof for the year then ended in accordance with

accounting principlm generall}r accepted in the United States of America.
Enlp nnrt's ofEtIntter

As discussed in Note 2. the accompanying ?nancial statements present only the Funds and do not purport to.
and do not. present fairly.F the ?nancial position of the {it}r as of June 30. 2013. and the changes in its
?nancitd position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America. Our opinion is not modi?ed with respect to this matter.

Other Reporting Required by ent Auditing 

In accordance with Government Auditing we have also issued our report dated Dctober
3. 2019 on our consideration of the City?s internal control over ?nancial reporting as it relates to the
Funds and on our tests of its compliance 1with certain provisions of laws: regulations. contracts and grant
agreements. and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of
internal control otter ?nancial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing. and not to proiide
an opinion on the internal control otter ?nancial reporting or on compliance related to the Funds. That
report is an integral part of an audit perforated in accordance with Government Standards in
considering the City?s internal control over ?nancial reporting and compliance related to the Funds.

Means 6n 5 O?C?aneff 

Los Angeles. California
October 2. 3019

Id

RON 36

in E?n?lMJuEl

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSITION HEIH FUNDS
Balance Sheet
June 30, .20 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GOVERVSEENTAL FUND 5
SPECIAL CAPITAL DEBT
REVENUE PROJECTS SERVICE
FUYD FUND TOTAL
ASSETS
Cash and Pooled Investments 5 71.106.371 12.261906 .1) 6.82 5.145 90.193422
Loans Receivable
(Net of Allowance for Uncolleclibles of 3.676.308 3,676 .308
Taxes Receivable
(Net of Allowance for Unconectibles of $36,973) 957.752 957.752
Investment Income Receivable 292.492 47,846 23.3 20 363 .658
TOTAL ASSETS 75.075.171 12309752 7.806.217 95.191.140
S. DEFERRED LVFL OF RE SOURCE 
BLVD FUND EAL-LVCES
5
Accounts Payable 11.602 3 11.602
Obligations Under Securities Lending Transactions 1.290.536 211.105 122 .935 1624,1376
Other Liabilities 392.229 64.161 3 7.3 64 493 .754
TOTAL LIABILITIES 1.682.765 286,868 160.299 2.129.932
DEFERRED OF RES OURC ES
Property Taxes 618,410 618.410
Interest 60.108 9.833 5 .634 75.575
Loan Interest 12.005 12.005
TOTAL DEFERRED OF RESOURCES 72.113 9.833 624.044 705.990
5
Restricted 73.320293 12.013051 7.021.874 92.355.218
OTAL S, DEFERRED OF
RESOLRCES FUND BALANCES 75.075.171 5 12.309752 3 7.806.217 95.191.140

 

See accompanying notes to the financial statements.
3

RON @5962!" 37



APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 


Property- Taxe 5
[me stment Earnings
Change 11.1 F1111 Value of Investments
Other
TOTAL 


omnmr?ty evelopme?t
Capital Outlay
Cost ofTs'smmce
Debt Service:
Interest
TO EXPENDITIRES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE
OVER (TNDE 
OTHER HNAXCIFG ES (USES)
Trans fers In
Transfers Out
Issuance ofLong?term Debt

Premium on Issuance of Long?term Debt

TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
NET CHASGE TN FEED 
H31) JULY 1. 201.7

FIT-D BALANCES, JUNE 2018

RON 



CITY OF LOS ANGELES. 

PROPOSITION Ill-[H FUSDS
Statement of Revenues. Expenditures and Changes in Fund Bala ures

For the Year Ended June 30. 2018

GOVERSMEYTAL FUNDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPECIAL CAPITAL DEBT
1131125111" PROJECTS SERVICE
EDT: F1302 TO IAL

3 3 3.575673 5 8,575,678
1.003.979 164.230 33.643 1.206.352
(1.156.023) (139.102) (110.122) (1.455.247)

72 72

(151.972) (24.372) 3.504.199 3327.355

75 5.572 - 755,572

104.241 104.241

427.011 69.350 - 496.361

- 1567.497 1567.497

1.132.533 174.091 1.567.497 2.924.171
(1,334.555) (193.963) 6.936.702 5.403.134
35.172 35.172
(73.193) (11.974) (35.172)
74.227336 12.142164 36.370000
500.210 31.324 - 532.034
74.654.343 12.212.014 35.172 36.952034
73.320.293 12.013.051 7.021.374 92.355213

3 73.320.293 3 12.013051 7.021.374 92 355 213

 

See notes to the financial statements.

.1

38

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY DI: AEGEIIS, 
EHH FIE-BS
Notes to the Financial Statements
For the Year Ended June 3t]. 1913



In November 2015.. registered voters of tie City of Los Angelea California {City} approved Proposition
HEH. Homelessness Reduction and Prevention. Housing and Facilities Bond [Bond]- authori'cing the issuance
and sale of tar-table goreral obligation bonds not to ettceed to be used to ?nanoe the
acquisition or unpros'ement ofreal property to provide: sippor?liye housing for extremely low income or
very low income indisiduals and ?rnilies who are homeless or chronically homeless. which includes ?c?ities
from which assistance and sen-ices. such as mental health treatment, health care. drug and alcohol treatment.
education and job training, may be presided; temporary shelter facilities. storage facilities. shower
fatalities and other ?cilities to be used to preside supportive senices or goods to. or otherwise bene?t. those
who are homeless: cloonically honnaless or at rislc of honJelessness', (cl affordable housing including veterans
housing for extremely low income. s-?ery low inconae and-'or low income and ?nsilies. incha?ng
those who are at rislc and (Id) associated in?astructure and landscaping- including utilities:
sidewalks and sheets to be used in connection with the a?srenientioned housing units and other facilities: any
of which may be operated: managed. owned or used by the City, other public entities. nonpro?t entities or
private entities. as permitted by law.

The table below 
as ofJ-?uneJD, 2918:

 

Amount Date
Voter authorization November it. 2015
Bonds issued:
Series Itlli?A Bond 85.3 July IE. 
Authorized but unissued i l_.l 151.630.th

The following projects were mcluded in the Series 2911A Bond: 8311' St Vermont PATH Metro 1 tTillaas Phase
1 Sir: Four Nine Lofts, McCadden Plaza Youth Housing. lEssa Del Sol, Flor 401 Lo?s. Rise Aparmaents. SP
7' Apartments the Pointe on South Campus. CD 3 Nasigation Center. 38* St Vermont Youth and
Comnninity Center. Joshua House Health Center. of Hope and Homeless 1inlets at the Marital
Subsequent to June it}. 2013- agreements 1with ICounter ofHope and Homeless Vets- at the Mission were not
executed

I PDIJCIES

Bart's ofPresenton'ot:

The accompanying ?nancial statements present only the ?nancial position and the changes in ?nancial
position of the Proposition Funds [Funds] and do not purport to- and do not. present City" 5
financial position as ofJnne St}. 21313 and the changes in its ?nancial position ofthe for the year then
ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Funds are comprised ofthe following governmental funds:

The mecial re't'enue ?uid is used to account for ?nancial resources for loans to developers for ?nancing
ofpercnanent supportive housing. afordable housing and supportive facilities for the homeless.

The capital projects fund is used to account for ?nancial resources for capital outlays for the City's
supportive housing facilities for homeless activities.



RON ?Atptam 39

in caulk-Juli"

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY 01: LBS ANGELEE, 
BEE 

Notes to the Financial StatenEnts {Continued}
For the Year Ended June 3t}. 1313

2 Elm-1R1." DI ACCDETIEG POLICIES 

The debt service fund is used to account for the payment of the matucing principal and interest ?om
property tart collections.

The Funds' activities are reported using the current ?nancial resources measurement focus and the
modi?ed accrual basis of accounting- Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and
available. Revenues are considered to be available when Ihey are collectible within the current period or
soon enough therea?er to pay liabilities of the current period The City considers revenues to be available
if collected within ?ll days of the end of the current ?scal period Revenue ?om property taxes are
recognized in the ?scal year for which the tastes are levied. Expenditures are generally recorded when a
liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting, However, debt services expendibires are recorded only
when payment rs due.

Cash and PooledIm'esrms-Hts

Cash and pooled investments represents the Funds" allocated portion of the City:s pooled cash and
investments. Cash and pooled investments are stated at fair value based on quoted market prices or values
of comparable investments. except for money market investments that have remaining maturities of one
year or less at the time which are reported at amortized cost. Interest earned on such pooled
is allocated to the City ?rnds based on each fund's average daily cash balance timing the
allocation period.

As permitted by the California Government l[L'ode {Code}- the City engages in securities lending activities.
The Funds? share of assets and liabilities arising from the reinvested cash collateral hm been recognized
in the ?nancial statements.

Loans Receivable

Prop loans are recorded when a warrant is issued for an approved expenditure of the prayect.
Interest at the rate ofthree percent per annum accrues on the principal amount outstanding horn the
date of the warrant, until the loan is repaid No allowance for doubtful loans receivable has been
established for loans during construction.

Deferred In?ows nfResonrrer

A deferred in?ow of resources is de?ned as an acquisition of ?uid balance that applies to a future
periodtjs) and so will not be recognized as an inlflorvr ofresonrces {revenues} until that time. Revenues and
other governmental fund ?nancial resources. are recognises-d in the accounting period in which they
become both measurable and available. Deferred in?ows of resources reported on the balanoe sheet
represent revenues that were not received within the ICity's ISO?day availability period.

?tlter Liabilities
Other liabilities represents the Funds? share of the Fool's pending investments trade at year-end

Fund Balances

The balance sheets of governmental ?rnds classify fund balances based primarily on the extent to which
the lIC?ity is bound to honor constraints on the speci?c purposes for which those funds can be spent. The
Funds only have restricted fund balances at June 30. 2013. Restricted fund balance represents amounts
when constraints placed on use of resources are either externally imposed by creditors {such as
through debt covenants}, gamers. contributions: or laws or regulations of other governments; or 
imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.

RON ?Aiesam 40

in 

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY L05 .LWGIELES, CALIF DENT-1
33-111 

Notes to the Financial Statements {Continued}
For the Year Ended June it}- 3313

NOTE 2 UT ACCUTJ-THG romcns cam?sen;

[he offs n'umtes

The preparation of ?nancial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles
requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that a?ect the reported and
disclosures. Accordingly. actual results may di??er from those estimates.

NOTE 3 CASH PDDLED 

The Fields maintain their cash in the City's cash and pooled investments [the Pool}. The ICity categorizes its
fair value measurements within the fair vahre hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting
principles. The hierarchy is based on me valuation inputs used to measure the ?ir vahre of'the asset. Level 1
inputs are quoted prices in active marl-sets identical assets: Level 2 inputs are signi?cant other observable
inputs; Level El inputs are signi?cant unobservable inputs. is oflnne 1018. Ihe Funds share of the Pool
was 599,193,421 1:Ivhich represents approainmtely 1.00% of the Pool There are no speci?c 
belonging to the Funds. The Pool is not rated as of June 30.. 2013. The City issues a publicly available
?nancial report that complete disclos 3 related to the entire cash and investment pool. The report
may be obtained by writing to the lCity of Los ?ngeles: Of?ce of the Controller. l?l} North Pilain Street. City
Hall East Suite Los Angeles- CA 90012. or by calling {213} or at 

fin oflor Angela's lending Program

The Sectnittes Lending Program is permitted and limited under pro-Linens of California Government
Code Section 535m. The City Council approved the SLP on October 32. 1991 under Council File No. 91?
which complies with the Califonna Gmernment Code. The objectives of the SLIP in paintity order are
sa?ety of loaned securities and prudent hivestment of cash collateral to enhance revenue ?'om the investment
program The ELF is governed by a separate policy and guidelines. with oversight responsibility by the
Investment Advisory Committee.

The City?s custodial bank acts as the securities lending agent. In the event a counterparty defaults by reason
ofan act of insolvency: the bank shall talce all actions which it deems necessary or appropriate to liquidate
permitted investments and collateral in connection with such transaction and shall make a reasonable effort
for two busrress days {Replacement Period} to apply the proceeds thereof to the purchase of sectnities
identical to the loaned securities not returned Ifmning the Replacement Period the collateral liquidation
proceeds are insuf?cient to replace any of the loaned securities not returned the hauls shalL subject to
payment by the City of the amount of any losses on any permitted investments. pay such additional commits
as necessaiyto make such replacement-

Under the provisicals ofthe SLR and in accordance 1.1!th the Government Code, no more than 20%
ofthe market value of the Pool is available for lending. The City receives cash. government securities.
and ?ederal agency issued sectaities as collateral on loaned securities. The cash collateral is reinvested in
securities. permitted under the msesmienr policy. In accordance with the Code. the securities lending agent
marl-rs to market the value of both the collateral and the reinveslinents dailv. Except for open loans where
either can terminate a lending contract on demand term loans have a maximum life of?? days.

lending basistoallPool
participants-

RON ?Arpram 41

in caulk-Ilsa"

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY DE LOS 
EDIE 

Notes to the Financial Statements {Continued}
for the Year Ended June 30. 2013

3 CASH Al's?D PDDLED 

The Funds participate in the City?s securities lending program through the pooled investment fluid. The
Funds recognize their proportionate share ofme cash collateral received for securities loaned and the related
obligation for the general invesunent pool. At Tune 341 2018- the Funds' portion ofthe cash collateral and the
related securities lending obligalicn was $1534.5'r'6. The Funds" portion ofthe securities pin'clmsed ?'om the
reinvested cash collateral at June 30. 3913 was $1624ji'?. Such are reported at fair value. The
Funds' portion ofthe noncash collateral at lime 3D. 2018 was $2,324,4Tl.

During the ?scal year. collateraliaation on all loaned securities were within the required 102% of market
value. The {Cit}r can sell collateral securities only in the EVEN. ofborrower default. The lending agent provides
indemni?cation for borrower default. There were no violations of legal or contracural provisions and no
borrower or heading agent default losses during the year. There was no credit rislceiqtosme to the City at June
30. 2x013.

Loaned securities are held by the City?s agents in the City?s name and are not subject to custodial credit risk.
NOTE -I LG.LTS RECEIVABLE
Loans receivable consists of two ?pes of loan programs as follows:

The Housing Loan Program provides funding to project sponsors who meet speci?c
criteria- This program is designed to leverage existing and future City. County. State and Federal funding
streams to consnuct permanent supportive housing and a?ordahle housing units. The principal and
accused interest is due and payable on the earliest of [Sitting-seven year covenant
from the date of the execution of the loan. the date the property is sold assigned transferred or
re?nanced. or an Event of Default by Borrower. Interest at the rate of three percent per annurn
accrues on the principal amount outstanding ?om the date ofthe warrant. until paid.

The Facilities Loan Program provides funding for the deteloprnent. acquisition or improvement of
facilities used to provide supportive services or goods to or otherwise bene?t mouse who are homeless.
chronically homeless or at risk ofhomelessness. Thane loans will he a service repayment agreement with
a term corresponding to the useful life of Ihe ?cilitv. The provider is required to provide supportive
services. goods. or other bene?ts to persons who are homeless for the greater of ten {Ill} years or 
{53} percent of the ?cilities useful life. There are no Facilities Loan Program Loans Receivable at June
30. 3513.

Loans receivable consists ofthe following:

 

'i'l'aject Amount
PATH Metro Villas Phase 2 2.331.764]
38th .St 'i-Teimont 233.54%
Total 5 34576.3 
3

RON ?Arpram 42

in commute

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY DE LOS 
BITE 

Notes to the Financial Statements {Continued}
for the Year Ended June 30- 21313

4? RECEIVABLE 

In December 2017'. he City entered into a loan agreement with ls-ien'n Villas Phase 1 Los Angeles LP for an
amoiult not to exceed $151332] and secured by a City Deed recorded against the property. The
loan hears interest at the rate of three percent {34-15} per annum on the principal amount outstanding the
date of the warrant for approved expenditures imtil paid. interest is computed based upon a ld?-day year.
and a Ell?day month. The principal and accrued interest is due antlpayable on the earliest of?a} ?fty??ve {55}
years from the date ofo-ccnpancy. the date the property is sold assigned. transferred. or re?nanced. or 
an Event ofDefIauIt by the Borrower. The loan receivable balance of?l?l Tij?? includes interest offal 1,545]
at June 301 1013.

In March 2018. the City entered into a loan agreement 1with 33a; .5: Vermont LP for an amount not to exceed
sensuous and seemed initially by a Fee and Leasehold Deed of Trust recorded against certain fee and
leasehold parcels ofthe property. and ?irther secured by the Deed of Trust recorded against the remaining fee
parcels of the property. The loan bears interest at the rate of three percent per annum on the principal
amount outstanding from the date of the warrant for approyed expenditures until paid Interest is computed
basedupon a BEE?day year: and a 30?day month. The principal and accrued interest ts due and payable on the
earliest of ?fty-?re {55} years ?'orn the date of occupancy. the date the property is sold. assigned.
transferred or re?nanced. or an Event of Default by the Bormwer. The loan receivable balance of
5.833-543 includes mteaest offal-=14 at June 30. 2013.

No allowance for doubt?tl accoums has been established due to management's assessment that the loans are
in thetrpreliminm?y stage and will be rolled into the Permanent Supportive Housing Loan.

FDTE 5 1303]]

De July 13. 301.7. the City issued taxable General Obligation Bonds ((3033) Series E?ll?A in the 
amount of 536370300 payable through September 1. 34337. with a premium of $581334 and interest rates
ranging from to The GUE- is secured by and payable it"rth property tastes. The ?rst interest
payment was due and paid on March 1. 343113 in the amount of and sentiannually ?neieafter on.
September 1 and March 1 of each year until maturity. The outstanding balance at June 30.. 31313 is

 

 


Balance at Balance at
July 1. It'll? Additions Reductions June I?roam-Juri-

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY UT LUIS -LWGIELES, 


Notes to the Financial Statements {Continued}
For the Year Ended June 30. 1013

6 AID- 

At Jtme 30. 1010- the following outstanding project loan enemnbraneea are as follows:

 

Project Amount

88th .3: Vermont
Homing 5 0.041-796
Youth and {Immunity Center 3145.154

PATH Metro Villas Phase 3 501.533
Total project encumbrances 5 11114.5?!

At June 30. 3013- the 3 Natrrgalim Center project. a City project- had an Manning eneumhranee of
53.140359.

At June 30. 2013- the following outstanding loan connuitrnenta are as follows:

 

Project Amount
Six. Fom' Nine Lofts. 5 5.500.000
McFadden Plaza Youth Homing 5.010-290
Easa Del Sol 3.055.043
Flor-"101 lofts; 11.930000
Rise Aparhnents. 9.500.000
EFT Apartments 11000000
The Poi-ate on ?Uemtont 7.900.000
South Campus 1.302.500
Joshua House Health Center 3.300.000
Corner of Hope 4-3 5.000
Homeless Veta at ?le Marion 320.055
Total loan commitment: 5 155-033-400

NOTE SUBS-EQUEZNT 

Bond Repolt'meirts for the Series 2011-1

Prineipal and interest in the amount of 54.320000 and 51.231493. reapeelit-?ehr were paid on September 1.
1010 and mtereat in the amount of 51205-746 waapaid on March 1. 2019. On September 1- 3019- gumeipal
and interest were paid in the amount of 54.330000 and reap-acutely.

of (903 Series 

On Jul].r 13. 2010. the iasued taxable General ?hligation Bonds Series. 201E-A Propositionl-lI-II-I
in the pemdpal mum of 53395-240000 payable throng-t Time 2039 with a premium of 51.1121660 and
interest ratea ranging from 2.90% to The GDB is recur-ed by and payable with property taxes. The that
interest payment was due and paid on March I. 2019 in the amount of 515-471?1354 and aemionnuallj;
thertea?er on September 1 and Mardl 1 of each year tort-i] On September 1- 1019- principal and
interest were paid in the amoum and respectively.

10

RON 44

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

CITY 105 JJTGELES, 

Notes to the Fi?ancial Statements.- {[?nn?nued?j
For the Yea: Ended June 30. 2013
EVENTS {Continued}
Pmpnii'l'fmr founm'mmn's

iject as cf August 2019. fut permanem 110mg pmjects are approxm?ely
57393411162 for 314?} units and for ?tihtes. projects totaling 

RON 45

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

This page is left intentionally bIank

RON ?Alfmm 46

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

tortilla-c
Dub?:
AtmLurenn

Independent Auditor?s. Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Complianee Ind [Ither blatters Billed on ?Audit omenneinl Stelennents
Performed in Accordance with 

HmoeahleMaon oftheCitf Colmei]
Git}! ofLoe Angelo; Cnl??omia

We have audited, inaoeol'dance with ?rnuditingemndenh generally.l aoeeptedin ?le United State; of
Amie: and the atan?arde 
States, dze?naneial I'Ioposr'timHElI-I
?Funde?of?le
CityofLoaAngelee, 


stat?nenta-

Internal Conh'IIl ?wrfilnneial Repoa?tg

nltelnaleomrol.


of?leCitfa 
eontolrelatedm?le
Funds.

Ada?dmey 


ofde?elmoles, inintemel comm], enoh'?nt these is a reasonable paeeibi?ty?lat a material n?aelntement.

.rign?mnt de?dangr is a de?ciency, or a combination of de?cien?ea, in intenul control that is less
mommamtenal wealnean charged with
gon?anaoce.




bematerla] weaknesses. 


Compliance and Dther Matters

Elnamjalatatementaale?ee?om



provision: The
results 


H64- 

I-oew-liv-Iml' 

Li

RON 47

APPENDIX A FY2018 FINANCIAL AUDIT

 

Purpose :3st Report

The purpose oflhis report 1s solely" to describe the scope ofour testing ofiaiernal control and compliance
and the results of that tes?ng, and not to promdde an. opinion on. The ofthe Ciw's intemal
control or on compliance related to the Funds. This report is an integral pa-n? of an audit performed in
accordance with .dlufin'ng in considering the City?s internal control and
compliance related to the Funds. Accordingly. ?ns oomrtumication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Maui-.5 @315 (?59

Los Angeles. California
Dotoher 3319

14

RON 48

Ln E?n?lMJuEl

Appendix B – Proposition HHH Housing Developments

Project

Developer

Sun Commons - 6329 Depot at Hyde Park - Adams Terrace N CLYBOURN AVE CA 6527 S CRENSHAW 4347 W ADAMS
91606
BLVD CA 90043
BLVD CA 90018

Abbey Road, Inc.

CD
Stage

GTM Holdings, LLC;
Women Organizing
Resources,
Abode Communities PATH Ventures
Knowledge and
Services ("WORKS")

2

8

Pre-development

PATH Villas
Hollywood - 5627 W
FERNWOOD AVE
HOLLYWOOD, CA
90028

10

Pre-development

Missouri & Bundy
Housing - 11950 W
MISSOURI AVE CA
90025

Thomas Safran &
Associates

13

Pre-development

11

Pre-development

Pre-development

Total Units

103

43

86

60

74

Studio

16

0

27

49

0

1 BR

29

21

57

10

40

2 BR

32

11

2

1

19

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

26

11

0

0

15

51

25

43

59

44

2

1

2

1

1

HHH Amount

$

12,000,000

$

8,160,000

$

12,000,000

$

12,320,000

$

11,520,000

TDC Amount

$

53,017,962

$

25,116,685

$

42,363,034

$

41,337,495

$

44,649,982

Land Costs

$

4,568,890

$

2,425,000

$

3,241,000

$

3,586,750

$

250,000

Construction Costs

$

36,607,159

$

13,106,115

$

24,004,174

$

19,518,820

$

22,097,000

Soft Costs

$

11,841,913

$

9,585,570

$

15,117,860

$

18,231,925

$

22,302,982

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

514,737

$

584,109

$

492,593

$

688,958

$

603,378

Construction End Date

2/3/2020

1/3/2020

1/3/2020

11/11/2019

8/12/2019

7/1/2021

7/6/2021

7/6/2021

6/4/2021

5/14/2021

49

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

PATH Villas
Isla de Los Angeles Montclair (New Site
Firmin Court - 418 N
283 W IMPERIAL
1 of 2) - 4220 W
FIRMIN ST CA 90026
HWY CA 90061
MONT CLAIR ST CA
90018

Clifford Beers
Housing; American
Family Housing

CD
Stage

Decro Corporation

8

PATH Ventures

1

Pre-development

Summit View
Building 205 - 11301
Apartments - 11681
WILSHIRE BLVD CA
W FOOTHILL BLVD
90073
CA 91342

11681 Foothill, L.P.

10

Pre-development

Figueroa Economical
Housing
Development
Corporation

7

Pre-development

11

Pre-development
49

Pre-development
67

Total Units

54

64

46

Studio

54

29

45

37

36

1 BR

0

18

0

11

31

2 BR

0

13

1

1

0

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

4

0

0

0

53

45

45

48

66

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

11,660,000

$

11,700,000

$

9,900,000

$

10,560,000

$

TDC Amount

$

23,728,229

$

39,399,058

$

31,320,269

$

26,464,827

$

37,994,432

Land Costs

$

1,325,000

$

2,600,000

$

5,288,077

$

255,000

$

11,000,000

Construction Costs

$

12,546,666

$

18,722,669

$

14,503,268

$

14,474,307

$

14,545,700

Soft Costs

$

9,856,563

$

18,076,389

$

11,528,924

$

11,735,520

$

12,448,732

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

439,412

$

615,610

$

680,875

$

540,099

$

567,081

Construction End Date

12,000,000

4/13/2020

11/1/2019

1/17/2020

11/1/2019

9/10/2019

11/1/2021

6/4/2021

8/25/2021

6/18/2021

3/26/2021

50

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Hartford Villa
Building 208 - 11301
Apartments - 445 S
WILSHIRE BLVD #208
Hartford AVE Los
CA 90073
Angeles, CA 90017

Figueroa Economical
Single Room
Housing
Affirmed Housing
Occupancy Housing
Development
Group, Inc
Corporation
Corporation

CD
Stage

Aria Apartments
(fka Cambria Apts) 1532 W CAMBRIA ST
CA 90017

11

1

Pre-development

McCadden Campus
Senior (aka
Residences on Main McCadden Plaza
6901 S MAIN ST CA
Senior) - 1127 N Las
90003
Palmas AVE Los
Angeles, CA 90038

Thomas Safran &
Associates

1

Residences on Main,
L.P.

4

9

Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction

Total Units

54

101

57

98

50

Studio

26

100

48

19

21

1 BR

28

1

8

75

15

2 BR

0

0

1

4

5

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

9

53

100

56

25

49

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

11,660,000

$

12,000,000

$

12,000,000

$

5,500,000

$

10,780,000

TDC Amount

$

35,135,102

$

44,859,535

$

28,478,153

$

50,639,484

$

26,568,641

Land Costs

$

11,000,000

$

6,721,867

$

3,600,000

$

4,930,158

$

1,770,635

Construction Costs

$

13,077,720

$

22,787,876

$

14,361,784

$

23,316,800

$

14,117,693

Soft Costs

$

11,057,382

$

15,349,792

$

10,516,369

$

22,392,526

$

10,680,313

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

650,650

$

444,154

$

499,617

$

516,729

$

531,373

Construction End Date

9/10/2019

11/8/2018

12/5/2018

12/20/2018

4/2/2019

3/26/2021

1/12/2021

9/30/2020

5/31/2020

10/30/2020

51

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Gramercy Place
Apartments - 2375
W WASHINGTON
BLVD CA 90018

Vermont Corridor
Apartments (aka 433 West Third
Vermont Apts) - 433 Apartments - 1900
S VERMONT AVE CA W 3RD ST CA 90057
90020

Project

Casa de Rosas
Campus - 2600 S
HOOVER ST CA
90007

Western Avenue
Apartments - 5501 S
WESTERN AVE CA
90062

Developer

WARD Economic
Development
Corporation

Figueroa Economical
Hollywood
Housing
Meta Housing
Community Housing
Development
Corporation
Corporation
Corporation

CD
Stage

9

8

10

Figueroa Economical
Housing
Development
Corporation

10

1

Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Loan Closed

Total Units

37

33

64

72

137

Studio

15

34

0

0

137

1 BR

19

0

58

57

0

2 BR

3

0

6

15

0

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

0

36

32

31

36

136

1

1

2

1

1

HHH Amount

$

7,920,000

$

4,660,033

$

9,920,000

$

7,200,000

$

10,291,998

TDC Amount

$

20,398,954

$

11,440,379

$

41,642,224

$

49,729,859

$

42,389,586
30,000,000

Land Costs

$

5,731,722

$

6,800,000

$

2,349,000

$

7,400,000

$

Construction Costs

$

7,601,916

$

1,427,250

$

22,220,443

$

29,627,645

$

4,753,900

Soft Costs

$

7,065,316

$

3,213,129

$

17,072,781

$

12,702,214

$

7,635,686

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

551,323

$

346,678

$

650,660

$

690,692

$

309,413

Construction End Date

3/13/2019

12/27/2018

4/30/2019

3/27/2019

12/27/2018

5/4/2020

1/31/2020

1/20/2021

2/18/2021

3/31/2021

52

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Ingraham Villa
Rose Apartments Apartments - 1218
720 E ROSE AVE CA
W INGRAHAM ST CA
90291
90017

Ingraham
Apartments, L.P.

CD
Stage

Weingart Tower II
Bryson II - 2701 W
(HHH PSH 1A) - 555
WILSHIRE BLVD CA
1/2 S CROCKER ST CA
90057
90013

Chelsea Investment
Venice Community Corporation;
Housing Corporation Weingart Tower II,
LP

1

11

Pre-development

14

Pre-development

Pre-development

Weingart Tower
(HHH PSH 1A) - 555
1/2 S CROCKER ST CA
90013

Los Angeles Housing
Partnership; The
Chelsea Investment
Richman Group of
Corporation;
California
Weingart Tower, LP
Development
Company
1
14
Pre-development

Pre-development

Total Units

121

35

144

64

134

Studio

120

30

122

32

106

1 BR

1

4

22

32

28

2 BR

0

1

0

0

0

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

0

90

34

122

32

106

1

1

2

1

1

HHH Amount

$

12,000,000

$

7,308,489

$

16,000,000

$

10,095,000

$

16,000,000

TDC Amount

$

52,472,377

$

18,220,401

$

72,022,642

$

22,518,068

$

72,022,642

Land Costs

$

8,450,000

$

1,182,200

$

3,166,186

$

1,045,000

$

3,166,186

Construction Costs

$

27,396,323

$

10,783,516

$

41,552,193

$

11,950,000

$

41,552,193

Soft Costs

$

16,626,054

$

6,254,685

$

27,304,263

$

9,523,068

$

27,304,263

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

433,656

$

520,583

$

500,157

$

351,845

$

537,482

Construction End Date

5/23/2020

4/13/2020

4/3/2020

1/6/2020

4/3/2020

12/1/2021

11/11/2021

9/1/2021

8/2/2021

9/1/2021

53

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Emerson
Apartments (fka
67th & Main Street - 68th & Main Street Melrose
6706 S MAIN ST CA 6714 S MAIN ST CA
Apartments) - 4766
90003
90003
W MELROSE AVE CA
90029

Metamorphosis on
Foothill - 13574 W
FOOTHILL BLVD CA
91342

Rosa De Castilla
Apartments - 4208 E
HUNTINGTON DR
SOUTH CA 90032

Coalition for
Responsible
Community
Development

Clifford Beers
Housing Inc

East LA Community
Corportion

CD
Stage

Coalition for
Responsible
Community
Development

9

Affirmed Housing
Group, Inc.

9

Pre-development

13

Pre-development

7

Pre-development

14

Under Construction Under Construction

Total Units

52

60

43

48

Studio

0

29

30

25

9

1 BR

0

30

12

22

55

2 BR

39

1

1

1

11

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

13

0

0

0

10

26

59

42

47

63

1

1

1

1

85

2

HHH Amount

$

7,180,000

$

12,000,000

$

8,360,000

$

10,340,000

$

12,000,000

TDC Amount

$

32,485,590

$

25,852,727

$

29,298,093

$

23,795,012

$

49,065,112

Land Costs

$

3,770,965

$

3,770,965

$

3,625,000

$

160,000

$

4,564,700

Construction Costs

$

15,852,601

$

15,852,601

$

12,160,881

$

14,802,934

$

28,447,384

Soft Costs

$

12,862,024

$

6,229,161

$

13,512,212

$

8,832,078

$

16,053,028

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

624,723

$

430,879

$

681,351

$

495,729

$

577,237

Construction End Date

5/22/2020

1/6/2020

11/1/2019

2/27/2019

5/2/2019

12/1/2021

7/14/2021

6/18/2021

10/27/2020

10/1/2020

54

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Broadway
Apartments - 301 W
49TH ST 1-30 CA
90037

Figueroa Economical
Housing
Abode Communities
Development
Corporation

CD
Stage

Grandview
Apartments - 714 S
GRAND VIEW ST CA
90057

9

1

Loan Closed

Pre-development

Southside Seniors Temple View - 3200
1655 W
W TEMPLE ST CA
MANCHESTER AVE
90026
CA 90047

Innovative Housing
Opportunities; John
Stanley, Inc.;
LINC Housing
Concerned Citizens Corporation
Community
Involvement
8
13
Pre-development

Pre-development

The Brine
Residential - 1829 N
HANCOCK ST CA
90031

Decro Corporation

1

Pre-development

Total Units

35

100

50

64

97

Studio

26

0

18

63

62
29

1 BR

8

53

32

0

2 BR

1

28

0

1

6

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

19

0

0

0

34

54

36

58

49

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

4,443,480

$

12,000,000

$

9,320,000

$

12,760,000

$

11,560,000

TDC Amount

$

11,520,534

$

63,975,453

$

24,801,907

$

28,920,289

$

49,521,687

Land Costs

$

700,000

$

7,597,100

$

2,166,000

$

2,295,000

$

3,509,936

Construction Costs

$

1,513,750

$

35,085,443

$

14,569,622

$

17,141,276

$

26,935,458

Soft Costs

$

9,306,784

$

21,292,910

$

8,066,285

$

9,484,013

$

19,076,293

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

329,158

$

639,755

$

496,038

$

451,880

$

510,533

Construction End Date

6/6/2019

12/7/2020

3/2/2020

1/31/2020

3/18/2020

3/31/2021

6/1/2022

9/15/2021

8/13/2021

10/1/2021

55

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Washington View
The Pointe on La
Apartments - 1912 S
Brea - 843 N LA BREA
BONSALLO AVE CA
AVE CA 90038
90007

Reseda Theater
Senior Housing
(Canby Woods
West) - 7221 N
CANBY AVE CA
91335

Main Street
Berendo Sage - 1035
Apartments - 5501 S S BERENDO ST CA
MAIN ST CA 90037 90006

Western Pacific
Housing, LLC

Thomas Safran &
Associates

Highridge Costa
Development
Company, LLC

CD
Stage

EAH INC

1

5

Pre-development

3

Pre-development

West Hollywood
Community Housing
Corporation

9

Pre-development

1

Pre-development

Pre-development

Total Units

122

50

26

57

Studio

26

49

0

42

8

1 BR

95

0

24

1

22

42

2 BR

1

1

2

14

6

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

6

91

49

13

56

21

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

12,000,000

$

8,624,000

$

4,060,000

$

8,512,000

$

6,620,000

TDC Amount

$

50,363,460

$

25,785,374

$

12,882,549

$

32,824,507

$

26,813,981

Land Costs

NA

$

5,215,000

$

1,210,000

$

3,271,000

$

2,100,000

Construction Costs

NA

$

12,387,557

$

6,269,000

$

20,040,522

$

14,552,036

$

8,182,817

$

5,403,549

$

9,512,985

$

10,161,945

$

515,707

$

495,483

$

575,869

$

638,428

Soft Costs
TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

NA
$

412,815
1/17/2020

3/2/2020

1/31/2020

3/6/2020

1/31/2020

7/1/2021

9/15/2021

8/16/2021

9/15/2021

11/1/2021

56

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Montecito II Senior
The Dahlia (aka
Housing - 6668 W
Serenity - 923 S
South Main Street
FRANKLIN AVE
KENMORE AVE CA
Apartments) - 12003
HOLLYWOOD, CA
90006
S MAIN ST CA 90061
90028

Solaris - 1141 S
Talisa - 9502 N VAN
CRENSHAW BLVD CA
NUYS BLVD CA 91402
90019

Affirmed Housing
Group, Inc.

Domus GP LLC

CD
Stage

Thomas Safran &
Associates

15

Domus GP LLC

13

Pre-development

10

Pre-development

Domus GP LLC

10

Pre-development

6

Pre-development

Pre-development

Total Units

56

64

75

43

49

Studio

43

28

40

0

0

1 BR

12

36

35

23

5

2 BR

1

0

0

16

30

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

4

14

55

32

74

42

48

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

12,000,000

$

10,140,000

$

13,520,000

$

9,240,000

$

10,560,000

TDC Amount

$

29,767,145

$

38,463,674

$

37,551,673

$

24,403,352

$

29,458,224

Land Costs

$

1,675,000

$

170,000

$

6,758,690

$

3,650,000

$

5,100,000

Construction Costs

$

18,160,881

$

23,729,500

$

23,349,241

$

13,590,751

$

14,859,900

Soft Costs

$

9,931,264

$

14,564,174

$

7,443,742

$

7,162,601

$

9,498,324

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

531,556

$

600,995

$

500,689

$

567,520

$

601,188

Construction End Date

3/2/2020

1/31/2020

3/2/2020

3/18/2020

3/18/2020

9/15/2021

8/16/2021

9/15/2021

10/1/2021

10/1/2021

57

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Santa Monica &
Vermont
Sherman Oaks
Deepwater - 1424 N
11408 S Central Ave PICO - 4200 W PICO Apartments Phase 2 - Senior - 14536 W
DEEPWATER AVE CA
11408 S CENTRAL
BLVD CA 90019
4718 W SANTA
BURBANK BLVD
90744
AVE CA 90059
MONICA BLVD CA
VAN NUYS, CA 91411
90029

LINC Community
Development
Corporation

CD
Stage

Wakeland Housing
and Development
Corporation

15

SMV Housing, L.P.

10

Pre-development

Mercy Housing
California

13

Pre-development

LINC Housing
Corporation

4

Pre-development

15

Pre-development

Pre-development

Total Units

56

54

93

55

Studio

0

53

32

54

0

1 BR

55

1

37

1

63

64

2 BR

1

0

22

0

0

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

2

0

1

55

53

47

54

63

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

12,100,000

$

11,410,000

$

12,000,000

$

11,880,000

$

10,112,000

TDC Amount

$

28,277,269

$

30,585,648

$

54,922,118

$

26,287,515

$

34,090,083

Land Costs

$

1,385,000

NA

$

7,382,826

$

2,854,446

$

3,090,000

Construction Costs

$

16,955,280

NA

$

32,362,057

$

13,814,823

$

19,795,232

Soft Costs

$

9,936,989

$

15,177,235

$

9,618,246

$

11,204,851

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

504,951

$

590,560

$

477,955

$

532,658

Construction End Date

NA
$

566,401

3/18/2020

6/17/2020

12/1/2020

5/18/2020

5/25/2020

10/1/2021

1/7/2022

12/1/2022

12/1/2021

11/30/2021

58

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Enlightenment Plaza
Los Lirios
- Phase I - 316 N
Apartments - 119 S
JUANITA AVE CA
SOTO ST CA 90033
90004

Stage

Gospel Truth CDC,
BRIDGE Housing
Inc.; Innovative
Corporation; BRIDGE Housing
Housing Corporation Opportunities; John
Stanley, Inc.

Flexible PSH
Solutions

CD

Vermont/Manchest
Normandie 84 - 8401 Weingart Tower 1B er - 8400 S
S NORMANDIE AVE HHH PSH - 554 S SAN
VERMONT AVE CA
CA 90044
PEDRO ST CA 90013
90044

13

14

Pre-development

Weingart Tower 1B,
LP; Chelsea
Investment
Corporation

8

Pre-development

14

Pre-development

Pre-development

BRIDGE Housing
Corporation;
Coalition for
Responsible
Community
Development
8
Pre-development

Total Units

105

64

42

104

180

Studio

83

13

10

103

N/A

1 BR

20

18

32

1

N/A

2 BR

2

17

0

0

N/A

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

16

0

0

N/A

103

20

34

83

90

2

1

1

1

2

HHH Amount

$

9,600,000

$

2,000,000

$

8,180,000

$

16,000,000

$

12,400,000

TDC Amount

$

40,101,000

$

35,719,050

$

18,849,299

$

64,622,612

$

41,203,528

Land Costs

NA

$

1,280,000

$

1,293,000

$

2,420,000

$

15,000

Construction Costs

NA

$

24,885,942

$

11,478,916

$

40,347,367

$

25,670,366

$

9,553,108

$

6,077,383

$

21,855,245

$

15,518,162

$

558,110

$

448,793

$

621,371

$

228,908

Soft Costs
TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

NA
$

381,914
4/3/2020

12/2/2020

5/18/2020

11/17/2020

5/18/2020

10/16/2021

7/20/2022

12/1/2021

6/1/2022

12/1/2021

59

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Sun King
First and Boyle - 100
La Veranda - 2420 E 6th and San Julian - Ambrosia - 823 W
Apartments - 12128
S BOYLE AVE CA
CESAR E CHAVEZ
401 E 6TH ST CA
MANCHESTER AVE
SHELDON ST Los
90033
AVE CA 90033
90014
CA 90044
Angeles, CA 91352

Many Mansions, a
California nonprofit
MANY MANSIONS
corporation; Azure
Development Inc.

CD
Stage

14

Abode Communities

6

Pre-development

Mercy Housing
California

14

Pre-development

The Skid Row
Housing Trust

14

Pre-development

8

Pre-development

Pre-development

Total Units

44

26

77

94

100

Studio

19

0

0

0

99

1 BR

19

12

0

93

0

2 BR

6

11

54

1

1

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

3

23

0

0

43

25

38

75

80

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

9,460,000

$

5,500,000

$

9,120,000

$

15,320,000

$

15,900,000

TDC Amount

$

24,270,021

$

14,615,050

$

53,111,065

$

53,866,560

$

54,957,044

Land Costs

$

1,636,750

$

800,000

$

7,240,000

$

6,225,500

$

6,256,196

Construction Costs

$

13,223,077

$

8,603,147

$

28,946,150

$

24,827,095

$

27,446,401

Soft Costs

$

9,410,194

$

5,211,903

$

16,924,915

$

22,813,965

$

21,254,447

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

551,591

$

562,117

$

689,754

$

573,049

$

549,570

Construction End Date

5/8/2020

5/18/2020

5/18/2020

5/18/2020

12/1/2020

7/2/2021

12/1/2021

12/1/2021

12/1/2021

6/1/2022

60

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Santa Monica &
Vermont
Confianza - 14142 W 4719 Normandie Sylmar II - 12667 N
Apartments Phase 1 VANOWEN ST VAN 4719 S NORMANDIE SAN FERNANDO
4718 W SANTA
NUYS, CA 91405
AVE CA 90037
ROAD CA 91342
MONICA BLVD CA
90029

SMV Housing, L.P.

CD
Stage

The Skid Row
Housing Trust

13

Wakeland Housing
and Development
Corporation

2

Pre-development

West Hollywood
Sylmar II, LP; Meta
Community Housing
Housing Corporation
Corporation

8

Pre-development

Mariposa Lily - 1055
S MARIPOSA AVE CA
90006

7

Pre-development
43

1

Pre-development

Pre-development
41

Total Units

94

71

Studio

31

70

42

53

10

1 BR

38

0

1

3

15

2 BR

22

1

0

0

11

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

3

0

0

0

5

47

70

42

45

20

1

1

1

1

56

1

HHH Amount

$

12,000,000

$

13,200,000

$

8,990,000

$

10,900,000

$

5,120,000

TDC Amount

$

54,930,603

$

37,040,803

$

25,079,176

$

25,088,985

$

28,743,963

Land Costs

$

7,382,826

$

3,541,613

NA

$

2,001,090

$

2,130,000

Construction Costs

$

32,362,052

$

19,462,456

NA

$

13,009,933

$

15,413,997

Soft Costs

$

15,185,725

$

14,036,734

$

10,077,962

$

11,199,966

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

584,368

$

521,701

$

448,018

$

701,072

Construction End Date

NA
$

583,237

12/1/2020

6/1/2020

5/18/2020

5/18/2020

4/15/2020

12/1/2022

12/1/2021

12/1/2021

12/1/2021

1/15/2022

61

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

Asante Apartments 803 E. 5th St - 803 E
11001 S BROADWAY
5TH ST CA 90013
CA 90061

Affirmed Housing
Group, Inc.

CD
Stage

Coalition for
Responsible
Community
Development

8

410 E. Florence
Watts Works - 9502
Avenue - 410 E
S COMPTON AVE CA
FLORENCE AVE CA
90002
90003

NEIGHBORHOOD
Unique Construction
WORKS 9502
DDCM Incorporated;
&
DEVELOPMENT, LLC;
RCC MGP LLC
Development, Inc.
Decro Corporation

14

Pre-development

15

Pre-development

Colorado East - 2453
W COLORADO BLVD
CA 90041

9

Pre-development

14

Pre-development

Pre-development

Total Units

55

95

25

51

Studio

35

94

25

50

0

1 BR

19

0

0

0

26

2 BR

1

1

0

1

14

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

1

54

94

24

50

40

1

1

1

1

41

1

HHH Amount

$

11,880,000

$

15,120,000

$

2,400,000

$

7,000,000

$

8,800,000

TDC Amount

$

28,204,968

$

37,960,970

$

9,340,000

$

15,719,266

$

22,149,944

Land Costs

$

1,615,000

$

12,600,000

$

403,500

$

1,048,066

$

3,820,000

Construction Costs

$

17,210,881

$

16,438,800

$

5,150,433

$

12,469,000

$

12,396,300

Soft Costs

$

9,379,087

$

8,922,170

$

3,886,067

$

2,202,200

$

5,933,644

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

512,818

$

399,589

$

373,600

$

308,221

$

540,243

Construction End Date

2/1/2020

10/15/2019

10/1/2019

10/1/2019

9/16/2019

7/30/2021

7/21/2021

4/15/2021

4/15/2021

7/14/2021

62

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

The Pointe on
Vermont - 7600 S
VERMONT AVE CA
90044

Stage
Total Units

Skid Row Housing
Trust

EAH INC

CD

SP7 Apartments 519 E 7TH ST CA
90014

8

McCadden Plaza
Youth Housing 1136 N MCCADDEN
PL CA 90038

Thomas Safran &
Associates

14

4

RISE Apartments - Casa del Sol - 10966
4050 S FIGUEROA ST W RATNER ST CA
CA 90037
91352

Highridge Costa
Development
Company, LLC;
A Community of
Single Room
Friends
Occupancy Housing
Corporation
9
6

Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction
100
26
57
44
50

Studio

8

99

26

56

17

1 BR

27

0

0

1

26

2 BR

8

1

0

0

1

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

7

0

0

0

0

25

55

25

56

43

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

7,900,000

$

12,000,000

$

5,018,298

$

9,500,000

$

8,065,143

TDC Amount

$

27,262,166

$

49,879,526

$

13,036,552

$

31,744,893

$

21,789,065

Land Costs

$

1,120,000

$

5,287,785

$

1,425,000

$

1,845,065

$

1,900,000

Construction Costs

$

14,672,420

$

15,050,676

$

7,586,261

$

13,347,487

$

10,893,009

Soft Costs

$

11,469,746

$

29,541,065

$

4,025,291

$

16,552,341

$

8,996,056

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

545,243

$

498,795

$

501,406

$

556,928

$

495,206

Construction End Date

6/27/2019

9/28/2018

9/24/2018

10/30/2018

9/27/2018

12/14/2020

11/6/2020

11/6/2020

7/31/2020

4/1/2020

63

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

649 LOFTS (aka Six
FLOR 401 Lofts - 401 Four Nine Lofts) E 7TH ST CA 90014
649 S WALL ST CA
90014

Skid Row Housing
Trust

CD
Stage

Skid Row Housing
Trust

14

Hope on 6th - 576
W. 6th Street
Los Angeles, CA
90731

PATH Metro Villas
Phase 2 - 320 N
MADISON AVE CA
90004

88th & Vermont 8730 S VERMONT
AVE CA 90044

PATH Ventures

Women Organizing
Resources,
1010 Development
Knowledge and
Corporation
Services

14

13

8

Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction Under Construction

15
Under Review
(as of Sep 30, 2019)

Total Units

99

55

122

62

49

Studio

98

54

60

12

15

1 BR

0

0

60

20

16

2 BR

1

1

2

24

18

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

6

0

49

28

90

46

31

1

1

2

2

1

HHH Amount

$

11,980,000

$

5,500,000

$

3,513,721

$

9,680,000

$

6,040,000

TDC Amount

$

49,687,818

$

28,407,343

$

55,050,829

$

34,069,046

$

28,615,371

Land Costs

$

6,060,000

$

2,109,420

$

4,000,000

$

4,496,025

$

Construction Costs

$

20,240,844

$

15,498,918

$

30,441,256

$

17,048,602

Soft Costs

$

23,386,974

$

10,799,005

$

20,609,573

$

12,524,419

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date

$

501,897

$

516,497

$

451,236

$

549,501

Construction End Date

1,207,285
NA
NA

$

583,987

12/4/2018

12/19/2017

12/13/2017

3/28/2018

4/1/2020

10/16/2020

10/16/2019

3/20/2020

11/30/2019

10/1/2021

64

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

CD
Stage

Silver Star II - 65766604 S. West
Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
90043

Lorena Plaza - 3401
East 1st Street,
Los Angeles, CA
90063

The Main - 15302 W.
Rayen Street
Los Angeles, CA
91343

Chavez & Fickett The Rigby - 15314 W.
338 N. Mathews
Rayen Street
Street
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
91343
90033

A Connnunity of
Friends

A Connnunity of
Friends

Abbey Road, Inc.

Abbey Road, Inc.

Abode Conmunities

8
Under Review

14
Under Review

6
Under Review

6
Under Review

14
Under Review

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

Total Units

64

49

64

64

Studio

14

3

12

12

0

1 BR

29

18

20

20

20

2 BR

20

20

20

20

25

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

1

8

12

12

15

56

32

33

33

30

1

1

1

1

60

1

HHH Amount

$

6,404,900

$

2,903,202

$

6,795,000

$

6,795,000

$

6,300,000

TDC Amount

$

26,623,932

$

25,819,084

$

41,018,669

$

41,970,484

$

41,186,592

Land Costs

$

2,400,000

$

2,030,000

$

2,875,000

$

2,875,000

$

3,060,000

Construction Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

Soft Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

$

415,999

$

526,920

$

640,917

$

NA
NA
655,789

$

686,443

7/1/2020

12/20/2020

3/1/2021

8/1/2020

1/1/2022

12/1/2021

6/1/2022

12/1/2022

5/1/2022

10/1/2023

65

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

CD
Stage

Hope on Hyde Park 6501 S. Crenshaw
Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA
90043

Hope on Broadway 5138 S. Broadway
Los Angeles, CA
90037

Topanga
Apartments - 10243
North Topanga
Canyon Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
91311

Barry Apartments 2454 S. Barry
Avenue,
Los Angeles, CA
90064

2745-2759 Francis
Ave - 2745- 2759
Francis Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
90005

Aedis

Aedis

Affirmed Housing
Group, Inc.

Affirmed Housing
Group, Inc.

Affordable Housing
CDC, Inc.

8
Under Review

9
Under Review

12
Under Review

11
Under Review

1
Under Review

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

Total Units

98

49

64

61

Studio

74

48

63

32

0

1 BR

24

1

0

17

63

64

2 BR

0

0

1

9

1

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

3

0

97

48

63

34

63

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

9,280,000

$

6,720,000

$

8,290,800

$

6,918,400

$

6,610,000

TDC Amount

$

40,093,334

$

22,162,568

$

28,617,938

$

31,932,359

$

30,851,806

Land Costs

$

3,500,000

$

1,500,000

$

1,500,000

$

4,200,000

$

6,000,000

Construction Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

Soft Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

$

409,116

$

452,297

$

447,155

$

NA
NA
523,481

$

482,059

10/1/2019

10/1/2019

2/1/2021

3/1/2021

9/1/2020

9/1/2020

9/1/2020

8/1/2022

9/1/2022

1/1/2022

66

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

CD
Stage

NoHo 5050 - 5050 5050 Yz N. Bakman
Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA
91601

Florence Ave
Apartments 2160,2164,2172 W
Florence Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
90047

Community
Affordable Housing Century Affordable
Development
CDC, Inc.
Development, Inc.
Partners

Decro Corporation

Deep Green Housing
and Community
Development

4
Under Review

15
Under Review

1
Under Review

2
Under Review

8
Under Review

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

537-541 N. Western
Ave. - 541 N.
Western Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
90004

841 N. Banning - 841
N. Banning
Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
90744

Westlake Housing
(The Lake House) 437 S. Westlake
Avenue, Los
Angeles, CA 90057

Total Units

64

64

63

40

56

Studio

27

0

28

4

25

1 BR

36

63

35

28

31

2 BR

1

1

0

8

0

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

0

63

63

62

32

55

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

6,614,118

$

8,000,000

$

6,510,000

$

3,833,200

$

6,300,000

TDC Amount

$

30,997,101

$

31,648,058

$

34,270,198

$

17,564,853

$

29,669,115

Land Costs

$

6,000,000

$

3,500,000

$

4,490,000

$

1,750,000

$

435,000

Construction Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

Soft Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

$

484,330

$

494,501

$

543,971

$

NA
NA
439,121

$

529,806

9/1/2020

9/1/2020

11/1/2020

7/1/2020

11/1/2020

3/1/2022

5/1/2022

3/1/2022

1/1/2022

9/1/2022

67

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

1615 Montana
Street - 1615 W.
Montana St., Los
Angeles, CA 90292

4507 Main Street 4505-4507 South
Main Street,
Los Angeles, CA
90037

7650 Van Nuys 7650 N. Van Nuys
Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
91405

Sepulveda
Apartments - 8428 N
Sepulveda
Boulevard, Los
Angeles, CA 91343

Developer

Domus GP llC

EAH Housing Inc.

EAH Housing Inc.

Figueroa Economical Figueroa Economical
Housing Dev. Corp. Housing Dev. Corp.

CD

13
Under Review

9
Under Review

2
Under Review

6
Under Review

2
Under Review

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

Project

Stage

Sherman Way Apt.
Preservation - 13561
W. Sherman Way,
Los Angeles, CA
91405

Total Units

64

64

96

76

56

Studio

49

18

47

75

55

1 BR

14

45

48

1

0

2 BR

1

1

1

0

1

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

0

63

33

49

75

55

1

1

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

6,614,000

$

7,239,000

$

11,460,000

$

10,500,000

$

7,700,000

TDC Amount

$

30,913,179

$

24,839,171

$

47,426,085

$

29,821,884

$

20,808,990

Land Costs

$

6,200,000

$

3,275,000

$

5,500,000

$

3,074,100

$

1,456,800

Construction Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

Soft Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

$

483,018

$

388,112

$

494,022

$

NA
NA
392,393

$

371,589

10/1/2020

9/1/2020

10/1/2020

1/1/2020

1/1/2020

4/1/2022

1/1/2021

4/1/2022

8/1/2020

7/1/2020

68

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

CD
Stage

Enlightenment Plaza Central Apartments SOLA at 87th - 8707 S
- Phase II - 316 N.
2106,2108,2112 S
Western Avenue
Juanita Avenue,
Central Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
90047
90004
90011

Westlake 619 The Angel - 8547 N.
619,623 S Westlake
Sepulveda
Avenue
Boulevard, Los
Los Angeles, CA
Angeles, CA 91343
90057

Flexible PSH
Solutions

Highridge Costa
Development
Company

Innovative Housing
LA Family Housing
Opportunities, Inc.

Meta Housing
Corporation

13
Under Review

9
Under Review

8
Under Review

6
Under Review

1
Under Review

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

Total Units

72

57

100

54

Studio

65

56

0

53

0

1 BR

6

1

51

0

36

2 BR

1

0

44

1

20

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

5

0

22

71

56

51

53

30

1

1

2

1

78

1

HHH Amount

$

9,940,000

$

7,840,000

$

9,000,000

$

5,565,000

$

3,149,580

TDC Amount

$

29,956,000

$

30,227,967

$

61,952,493

$

28,226,850

$

34,276,576

Land Costs

$

4,320,000

$

3,300,000

$

7,600,000

$

1,800,000

Construction Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

Soft Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

$

416,056

$

530,315

$

619,525

$

NA
NA
NA

522,719

$

439,443

7/1/2020

3/1/2020

3/1/2021

11/1/2020

6/1/2020

10/1/2021

10/1/2021

6/1/2022

5/1/2022

10/1/2021

69

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

CD
Stage

Bell Creek
Apartments - 6940
N. Owensmouth
Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
91303

Washington Arts
Collective 4600,4601,4609,4615
W Washington
Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
90016

West LA VA Campus
5th Street PSH - 411
Bldg #207 - 11301
E. 5th Street,
Wilshire Blvd. #207
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA
90013
90025

Meta Housing
Corporation

Meta Housing
Corporation

Relevant Group

Thomas Safran &
Associates

Thomas Safran &
Associates

3
Under Review

10
Under Review

14
Under Review

N/A
Under Review

11
Under Review

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

Thatcher Yard
Housing - 3233 S.
Thatcher Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
90292

Total Units

80

56

35

64

Studio

0

0

0

57

0

1 BR

40

30

35

7

76

2 BR

20

11

0

0

13

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

20

15

0

0

9

41

20

34

63

49

1

1

1

1

98

1

HHH Amount

$

6,226,546

$

2,097,200

$

4,760,000

$

8,820,000

$

11,660,000

TDC Amount

$

39,949,602

$

29,780,273

$

11,657,496

$

31,367,161

$

54,684,712

Land Costs

$

4,560,000

$

903,974

NA

Construction Costs

NA

NA

Soft Costs

NA

NA

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

$

499,370

$

531,791

$

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA
333,071

$

NA
490,112

$

558,007

5/1/2020

3/1/2020

3/1/2020

2/1/2020

3/1/2021

2/1/2022

8/1/2021

3/1/2021

7/1/2021

3/1/2023

70

 APPENDIX B - PROPOSITION HHH HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

Project

Developer

CD
Stage

4906-4926 Santa
Monica - 4912 W.
Santa Monica
Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
90029

2652 Pico
Apartments - 2652
W. Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
90006

11010 Santa Monica
Blvd - 11010 Santa
Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA
90025

Wakeland Housing
Venice Community
& Development
Housing Corporation
Corp.

Wakeland Housing
& Development
Corp.

Weingart Center
Association and
Valued Housing

11
Under Review

13
Under Review

1
Under Review

5
Under Review

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

(as of Sep 30, 2019)

Lincoln Apartments 2467 S. Lincoln Blvd.,
Los Angeles, CA
90291

Total Units

40

62

54

51

Studio

28

61

53

50

1 BR

9

0

0

0

2 BR

3

1

1

1

3 BR
Supportive Housing
Units
Mgr Unit

0

0

0

0

39

61

53

50

1

1

1

HHH Amount

$

5,460,000

$

5,225,000

TDC Amount

$

Land Costs

$

19,537,023

$

3,100,000

$

1

$

3,550,000

$

36,038,114

$

29,992,408

$

6,400,000

$

4,100,000

7,000,000
19,943,017
NA

Construction Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

Soft Costs

NA

NA

NA

NA

TDC Per Unit
Construction Start
Date
Construction End Date

$

488,426

$

581,260

$

555,415

$

391,040

9/1/2020

3/1/2020

6/1/2020

7/1/2020

1/1/2022

6/1/2021

9/1/2021

4/1/2021

71