Legislation

Image result for los angeles council chamber

LINCOLN HEIGHTS PARKING LOTS

Image result for lincoln heights parking lots

FALSE: The Councilmember is trying to push housing in Lincoln Heights.

FACT: The RFQ/P was issued by the CAO in July 2016, and the recommendations from the panel were made to Council in December 2016. The Councilmember intervened because there was no community input process. A link to the staff report is here: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-0600-s145_rpt_CAO_11-18-2016.pdf


FALSE: The Councilmember is going to build housing only for the homeless.

FACT: The Council Member does not support placing an overconcentration of one type of housing in a single location. The Councilmember believes in building communities with a mix of housing options serving a range of incomes. Lincoln Heights will not have an overconcentration of housing serving people formerly experiencing homelessness. The Councilmember’s vision is a mixed-income housing neighborhood, with not only permanent supportive housing, but a combination of affordable, workforce and market-rate housing.


FALSE: The Councilmember is moving forward with no community input.

FACT: The Councilmember halted the project because there was no community input, and agreed to move forward only after a strong community input component was required of the development team. The opportunity for community input must/will happen once the development team signs the ENA. 

UPDATE 1/24/18: Lincoln Heights Parking Lots

Source: CAO Report, November 18, 2016

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-0600-s145_rpt_CAO_11-18-2016.pdf

SUMMARY

As part of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget, both the Mayor and Council affirmed the City’s commitment to addressing homelessness and approved the Affordable Housing Opportunities Sites (AHOS) Initiative launched by the Office of the City Administrative Officer (CAO). The AHOS Initiative is the implementation of Strategy 7D of the City’s Comprehensive Homeless Strategy, which proposes the use of City-owned land for affordable or homeless housing. On July 1, 2016, the Council instructed the CAO, with assistance from pertinent departments, to prepare and release an AHOS Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P).

The City received 49 responses and 73 development strategies in response to the RFQ/P. This report requests approval to establish the list of pre-qualified housing developers; requests approval of the disposition recommendations for all eight sites (12 parcels); and requests authority for HCIDLA to solicit future proposals from the prequalified list for City-owned sites that have been evaluated through the City’s Asset Management Framework and identified as appropriate sites for affordable housing. The total market value of these sites, based on Class A appraisals, is estimated at $91.5 million.

BACKGROUND

The City of Los Angeles is facing a homelessness crisis. There are approximately 28,464 people who are living unsheltered in the City Los Angeles (2016 Homeless Count), and there are thousands more who are at risk of homelessness. During FY 2015-16, Mayor Garcetti and the City Council made addressing homelessness a top priority. In February 2016 the Mayor and Council approved the Comprehensive Homeless Strategy (CHS). The CHS analyzed various ways to address the problem of homelessness and listed 64 specific short, medium and long-term strategies for achieving the goal of reducing the number of people in Los Angeles living without safe, adequate shelter and services.

To create new housing opportunities for the homeless by using existing surplus or underutilized City-owned properties, the Council adopted CHS Strategy 7D - “Using Public Land for Affordable and Homeless Housing.” In furtherance of the CHS goals, the Mayor and Council approved $138 million to address homelessness in the FY 2016-17 Adopted Budget, of which $47 million is anticipated to come through the AHOS Initiative in the form of housing or revenue generated from the sale or lease of the properties. As part of the overall CHS and since approval of the budget and the AHOS Initiative in July 1, 2016, the CAO has worked extensively with staff from across the City to set up this alternate model, a property review and evaluation process, for housing delivery and implementation of Strategy 7D. This work resulted in the first AHOS Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P) that would identify and prequalify firms engaged in housing development as well as secure viable potential development strategies for which an exclusive negotiating agreement could be executed.

RFQ/P PROCESS, SELECTION PANEL AND APPEALS

The response to the AHOS RFQ/P included 49 development entities responding with 73 development strategies for the 12 parcels. Although the goal of this RFQ/P was to identify permanent supportive housing projects for these sites, the RFQ/P allowed for other housing types to ensure a mix of units on sites with more than one parcel and also to ensure that the qualified list would identify developers for future City-owned sites the City may want to develop.

The housing types that firms have been qualified to develop include the following:

  • Permanent Supportive Housing
  • Affordable Multifamily Housing
  • Mixed-Income Housing
  • Affordable Homeownership
  • Innovative Methods of Housing

Selection Panel

The five-member Selection Panel for the RFQ/P consisted of four City staff and one non-City staff engaged in housing work. City staff consisted of representatives from the CAO, CLA, HCID, and the Department of City Planning (DCP). The non-City panelist was from the County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office (County CEO) Homeless Initiative.

As prescribed in the RFQ/P, the Selection Panel evaluated and scored two areas: 1) experience and capacity of the developer or development team, and 2) the strength of a development strategy. If a developer submitted more than one development strategy, the points for the highest scoring strategy were added to their experience and capacity points to determine the overall score. One developer did not submit a development strategy and was removed from further consideration.

The Selection Panel recommended 36 of the 49 respondents be pre-qualified based on their scores. Each of these developers achieved the minimum qualifying score of 80 points on their response to the RFQ/P.

Disposition Recommendations

1. Exclusive Negotiating Agreements

We are recommending that the City enter into Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENA) with the highest scoring development strategies on nine (9) parcels. Most of these strategies may not require additional City subsidies for the proposed project. These proposals include a mix of supportive, affordable, and market-rate units. Because the number and types of units may change during the ENA negotiations, specific information on each development strategy is not included in this report. HCIDLA will negotiate these agreements with assistance from the CAO and CLA and report back with detailed Disposition and Development Agreements for each site.

These sites and developers being recommended for ENAs include:

Site Developer(s) Recommended for ENA
1. Lincoln Heights DOT Lots (5 parcels) GTM Holdings and WORKS
2. Hillside Parcel LA Family Housing and Many Mansions
3. Thatcher Yard Thomas Safran and Associates
4. Old West LA Animal Shelter Thomas Safran and Associates
5. Venice Dell Pacific Site Hollywood Community Housing and Venice Community Housing Corporation

CD1 INTERVENTIONThese recommendations account for approximately 500 units. Again, the number and type of units may change pending negotiation of the respective exclusive negotiating agreements for each site. Once these recommendations are approved, the developer will work with HCID, the Council Office and the community to finalize the project.

The Councilmember had serious concerns about the lack of meaningful community outreach when the City Administrative Officer originally accepted responses to the RFQ/P from housing developers in September, 2016.  When the CAO recommendations came to the full City Council in December, 2016, the Councilmember instructed to remove the recommendations for the parking lots from consideration.

View motion here:   http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-0600-s145_mot_12-14-16.pdf

Upon further review, the Councilmember decided that it would be acceptable to proceed with the recommended development team, but only if a robust community engagement process were implemented. The previous process was flawed due to the lack of a meaningful community participation process. However, upon further review, we found no reason to question the validity of the City panel review and recommendation of development teams under the original RFQ/P process.

View motion here: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2016/16-0600-s145_misc_12-6-17.pdf

Going forward, the Councilmember has required that input from diverse community stakeholders be required on what type of development, land uses, architectural designs and related city planning matters before the City makes a final decision on the scope of proposed development on the parking lots. The team of GTM Holdings and WORKS shall be required to implement a meaningful and inclusive community participation process during the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (“ENA”) period to solicit input on shaping the parking lots’ future vision.  If the team performs to the satisfaction of the City during the ENA period, then the City may consider entering into a development agreement with the team.

NEXT STEPS

Upon signing the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, GTM Holdings and WORKS must hold a series of community discussions to solicit community input for the proposed projects.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

This page is updated weekly on City Council motions and resolutions by Councilmember Cedillo.

For the searchable database, please visit the LA City Clerk Connect File Management System by clicking here: http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/

Select the 'advanced search' option and select legislation by 'member.' 


Newsletter Calendar Volunteer

connect