County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 222South HillStreet•Sixth Floor•Suite670•LosAngeles,California 90012

Recommendations 16

• R1

  Page 118
  3:BoardofSupervisors (BOS)/LASD/Los Angeles County Fire Department/LAPD andthe Los Angeles City Council (LACC) should authorize an update or replacement ofthe current Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to integrate itwith systems in use by other agencies. The Department acknowledges theimportance of CAD system integration to streamline our processes and improve interagency communication and cooperation. The recommendation aligns with our commitment toenhancing the safety and well-being ofour community members and isconsistent with our goal ofoptimizing resource allocation and information sharing among various law enforcement agencies. AComputer-Aided Dispatch system that can seamlessly communicate with other agencies is essential toensure prompt and efficient response during critical incidents and emergencies. It will not only facilitate real-time information sharing but also reduce response times, enhance situational awareness, and improve the overall effectiveness ofouroperations. Considering this,the Department will explore thisrecommendation withthe Emergency Command Control Communication Systems Division (ECCCSD) andthe Los Angeles City InformationTechnology Agency (ITA).
• R2

  Page 107
  Access to appropriate resources: Navigating the mental health system can be challenging, especially for individuals in crisis. Patient navigation services can help recipients connect with the appropriate resources and services they need, such as outpatient therapy, medication management, or support groups. Navigators can assist with scheduling appointments, coordinating referrals, and providing information about available community resources, making it easier for individuals to access the support they require.
• R3

  Page 108
  Reducing relapse and readmission rates: Without proper follow-up and ongoing care, individuals who receive emergency mental health services may be at a higher risk of relapse or readmission to the emergency department. Patient navigation services can help prevent these relapses by ensuring that individuals receive the necessary support, monitoring, and treatment after their initial crisis. By addressing their ongoing mental health needs, patient navigation can reduce the likelihood of repeated emergencies and promote long-term recovery.
• R4

  Page 108
  Support and advocacy: Navigating the mental health system can be oven/vhelming, especially for individuals in crisis or those who may be unfamiliar with available services. Patient navigators provide valuable support, guidance, and advocacy throughout the process. They can help individuals understand their rights, assist with paperwork and documentation, and act as a liaison between the individual and healthcare providers. This support can empower recipients, increase their engagement in their own care, and improve their overall mental health outcomes.
• R5

  Page 108
  Preventive care and early intervention: Patient navigation services can also play a crucial role in preventive care and early intervention. By connecting individuals with appropriate mental health resources and support early on, potential crises can be identified and addressed before they escalate. Timely interventions and ongoing support can help individuals manage their mental health effectively, reducing the likelihood of future emergencies. Overall, improving patient navigation services for recipients of emergency mental health services enhances their access to care, promotes continuity of care, reduces relapse rates, provides support and advocacy, and enables preventive and early intervention measures. By addressing these needs, patient navigation services can significantly improve the overall mental health outcomes and well-being of individuals in crisis. Recommendation 1.6: BOS/DMH/DHS/DPH should authorize the development and staffing of additional Psychiatric Urgent Care Centers and Sobering Centers in key locations to help provide sufficient placements of mental health patients. Response The LAFD supports this recommendation. As Psychiatric Urgent Care Centers (PUCCs) and Sobering Centers are becoming increasingly occupied, it is recommended that they be geographically expanded to service a greater number of patients throughout the area. Expanding psychiatric urgent care centers, sobering centers, and additional medical detoxification centers in Los Angeles is of paramount importance to address the growing mental health and substance abuse crisis across the County. AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Presiding Judge July 25, 2023 PUCCs and Sobering Centers provide vital support and services to individualsfacing acute psychiatric emergencies, alcohol or drug-related issues, and the dire need for medical detoxification. By investing in such facilities, we can ensure timelyand appropriate care for those struggling with mental health challenges while also offering a safe and supportive environment for individuals seeking sobriety. With the expansion of these centers, Los Angeles can alleviate the strain on hospitals and emergency rooms, offering specialized care tailored to the unique needs of patients in crisis. Moreover, these centers can serve as a bridge to long-term treatment and recovery programs, fostering a more holisticand effective approach to healing our community. Byprioritizing the establishment of additional facilities, we can create a healthier and more compassionate city that prioritizes the well- being of all its residents. Recommendation 1.7: DMH/DPH/DHS and the BOS should substantially increase the number of rescue transport vehicles in service to promote additional opportunities for persons in need. Response Demand for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) has not only increased in the Cityand County of Los Angeles, but it has also evolved. The Cityof Los Angeles has not only experienced an increase in traditional calls for life-threatening emergencies, but it has also experienced an increase in calls for services related to: • Mental health crisis incidents, • low-acuity/non-life-threatening medical incidents, and • Medical incidents related to homelessness. Additional ambulances and new forms of alternative response and transport units are required to address the growing and evolving needs of the public. The LAFD appreciates the opportunity to provide written responses to the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report "HAVE WE M.E.T.? MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION TEAM AND HOW THEY WORK." Sincerely, KRISTIN M. CROWLEY Fire Chief AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER HHH Too Few, Too Much, Too Slow i- OliL/FORV^ 2022 - 2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Y AnnSewiil, General Manager TriciaKeane, Executive Officer Daniel Huynh, Assistant General Manager Anna E.Ortega, Assistant General Manager Luz C.Santiago, Assistant General Manager Cityof LosAngeles Karen Bass, Mayor September 19,2023 Honorable Judge Samantha P. Jessner, Presiding Judge Superior Court of Califomia, County of Los Angeles Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple Street, Thirteenth Floor, Room 13-303 Los Angeles, CA 90012 LOS ANGELES HOUSING DEPARTMENT 1200West 7th Street, 9th Floor LosAngeles, OA 90017 Tel: 213.808.8808 housing.lacity.org Re: HHH Too Few, Too Much, Too Slow Pre-Reiease of a report by the 2022-2023 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Dear Judge Jessner: The Los Angeles Housing Department acknowledges receipt of the 2022-2023 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Pre-Release of a Report regarding HHH, its findings and recommendations. The Los Angeles Housing Department appreciates the Civil Grand Jury's interest inour program. Inaccordance withCalifomia Penal Code §933 (c) and §933.05, we respectfully submit Attachment A as our formal response to Recommendations 1.1 through 1.11 For additional questions or comments, your staff may contact Daniel Huynh, Assistant General Manager, at: (213) 808-8901, or via email at: [email protected]. ANN SEWILL General Manager An Equal Opportunity Employer AttachmentA RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Department: Los Angeles Housing Department Subject: 2022-2023 CivilGrand Jury Recommendations For: HHH: Too Few. Too Much. Too Slow Proposition HHH, a $1.2 billion initiative endorsed by voters in 2016, aimed to significantlyboost the City's annual production of supportive housing units from 300 to 1000. The original goal of Proposition HHH was to facilitate the creation of 7,000 new homes for individuals dealing with homelessness within a span of ten years. However, the current status as of August 2023 reveals a more promising outlook, with 8,596 HHH units actively progressing. Among these, 2,877 are already in operation, while an additional 3,512 are actively under construction. Concurrently,the Citycontinues to commitfunding for another 300 non-HHH supportive housing units each year. Recommendation No. 1.1 - Whatever remains of HHHfunds, ifany, should go to projects that provide more immediate "interim" housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. Response: In the past two fiscal years the City has invested $860,516,405 from other sources in producing and operating 10,000 interim housing beds, ranging from congregate shelters to Project RoomKey motels to Tiny Home Villages and others. Every year to keep these open the Citywould need to allocate funds for operations rangingfrom $50 to $267 per unitper night, with an average of $65 per unitper night, or $237 million annually for all 10,000. Permanent housing requires the initial capital investment, but operating costs are much lower and are covered by rental income from resfdents and federal or county rental vouchers. Permanent housing is not only a better financial investment; it is what moves people from homelessness into being housed. These HHH units are needed to move people from interim beds into homes. HHHis one of the few sources the City has to provide capital funding for permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness. Recommendation No. 1.2 - The City Council, LAHD, and the Mayor's office should prioritize controlling PSH costs and mitigating delays. AttachmentA Response: Despite a global pandemic and related challenges in virtual processing, the pace of development is anything but sluggish. The HHH program has committed financing to 131 projects. Fifty-4hree projects totaling 3,243 units have been constructed and 52 projects totaling 3,378 units are under construction. The remaining projects are in pre-development and we expect HHH to have contributed to the construction of 8,596 units of Permanent Supportive Housing. The Mayor's Office Executive Directive 30 streamlining initiative has reduced the number of days for ready-to-issue permits for HHH projects by 154 days. Every month LAHD publishes the attached HHH Summary showing how projects are progressing from early entitlement planning, to construction loan closing, to completion. Recommendation No. 1.3 - Tiny home villages are de facto permanent housing that should be reciassified as such, protected and supported by the City, until more substantial permanent housing is available. Response: This recommendation falls outside the purviewof LAHD. Tiny Home Villagesare constructed and installed with the expectation of operating as interim housing. They do not contain individual kitchens or bathrooms, which are key components of permanent supportive housing. The city is utilizing an approach incorporating both interim and permanent supportive housing, and new PSH units are coming on line. Interim housing units serve a specific purpose of providing unhoused residents withstrategies to address critical needs while being placed in permanent housing, however units constructed to the standard of permanent supportive housing are needed to address this problem in the long term. Residents of interim housing, including tiny home villages, receive access to services and support, including but not limitedto on-site caseworkers, housing navigation services, and mental and physical health services. Recommendation No. 1.4 - The Cityshould remove any City-imposedimpedimentto building any type of safe, affordable PSH project, including container housing and manufactured home projects. Response: This recommendation is not under the purview of LAHD, however the city has already implemented this recommendation to the best of its ability. The Mayor issued Executive Directive 1 (ED1), which expedites the entitlement and permitting process for 100% affordable housing developments that are consistent with the underlying zoning for a site, which includes permanent supportive housing projects. In its first 6 months 1,649 affordable units across 22 projects have secured approvals in an average of 37 days, a savings of at least 6 months. There are over 400 projects and 8,500 units in the ED1 pipeline. In June 2023, the City Council directed the Department of City Planning to develop an ordinance that would make ED1 AttachmentA permanent. ED 1 does not preclude based on building type, provided the project is zoning compliant and meets both building and safety requirements and ixjilding codes. However in some instances it is prudent for a project, even a permanent supportive housing project, to be subject to the required discretionary review and public hearing process. Streamlining must be applied with care. Recommendation No. 1.5 - The City should remove any lender hesitation by guaranteeing construction loans on container PSH projects. Response: The City's HHH pipeline of deals includes eight modular projects (modular or prefabricated construction includes "container" housing) with financing structures similar to traditionally constructed buildings. Generally, LAHD makes no distinction in the development process between modular and conventional construction. The Housing Challenge, an $120 million competition to test a range of housing innovation supported the advancement of modular projects. Thus far, LAHD has not seen a marked decrease in costs of modular construction compared to traditional construction but as the innovation develops and projects become more common, perhaps the speed of construction will increase and the costs will decrease. LAHD continues to support developers who elect to build modular projects. Recommendation No. 1.6 - The City should immediately put vacant land under its control that is suitable to be used for housing purposes toward safely housing individualsliving on the streets, in tents or in vehicles. These sites should be secured and appropriate services provided until such time as permanent housing can be produced. Response: In November of 2012, after the dissolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA), the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) created the Land Development Unit (LDU) to implement the development of affordable housing on land purchased by the CRA/LA for affordable housing. In February of 2016, the City of Los Angeles adopted a Comprehensive Homeless Strategy that included strategy 7D, "Using Public Land for Affordable and Homeless Housing." Shortly after the homeless plan was released, the City Administrative Officer (CAO) launched the Affordable Housing Opportunity Sites (AHOS) Initiative to identity City-owned sites identrfred for affbrdabfe housing. Since 2016, the LAHD and the CAO have collaborated on the Land Development and AHOS Initiative by developing common processes and regulations. In general, the CAO is responsible for identifying and evaluating City-owned sites for development, and the LAHD is responsible for selecting developers and negotiating disposition development agreements. AttachmentA In December of 2019, the Los Angeles City Council restricted development of housing on public land by adopting a motion (CF 19-1362) which limits projects on public land to 100% affordable housing, unless it is determined by Council that an increased number of affordable units can be achieved through a different business model. Additionally, LAHD must adhere to the Surplus Land Act (SLA). The SLA is a statute that local agencies must follow when disposing of surplus land. It was amended by Assembly Bill 1486 (Ting 2019) as well as other subsequent bills. These amendments modified the SLA to require local agencies across Califomia to submit notices of availability of surplus land to the Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for listing on the HCDwebsite, and to notifyinterested developers and certain local public entities. Land declared exempt surplus may be exempted from some or all provisions of the SLA by meeting certain criteria. The city has an ongoing effortthrough Executive Directive3 to see ifpublicly owned sites withinthe Cityof Los Angeles can be developed with minimal public subsidies, and instructed departments to identify undeveloped or underutilized city-owned land, with the purpose of potential development into interim or permanent housing. Recommendation No. 1.7 - The City must find a new method of developing PSH which allows for both cost and quality controls. Response: Costs for HHH or any affordable housing development need to be put in the context of costs for equivalent market rate developments. Even a quick google search of "multifamily construction costs in Califomia" produces reports from the Temer Center at UC Berkeley, the UC Riverside School of Business, and others showing that market rate construction in all of Califomia, and particularly in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, has reached staggering heights. A feasible plan to produce the housing we need must be understood in the context of the broader real estate market. It is possible to compare the costs of affordable housing and comparable market rate developments and identify the elements that increase costs in affordable units - prevailing wages, higher energy efficiency standards, operating and replacement reserves, fumiture and developer fees - that aren't included in development budgets for market rate projects because they are paid upon sale when the project is completed, or covered by escalating rents over time. Affordable housing project budgets also include holding costs and legal fees involved in assembling "soff financing from multiplesources. The reliance on layered financing adds time and money, but stretches HHH funding to meet production goals. Without leveraging, HHH would have produced only 3,900 permanent units. AttachmentA The LAHD staff is committed to finding ways to reduce costs, while retaining the commitment to funding projects that are physicaUy and financially healthy for the decades covenanted. Realizing that some of the highest cost projects were those that had high public agency involvement, the HHH portfolio is divided into "basic" projects that include prevailing wages, higher energy efficiency standards, accessibility standards, and reserves and fees, and a "Housing Plus" category. The Housing Plus projects have been developed on Metro-owned or publicly-owned land and included requirements for community amenities such as neighborhood-serving commercial, child care centers or clinics, more parking spaces than required, or more open space. Others were funded with the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program using the State's cap and trade program, and included additional greenhouse gas reduction features, support of infrastructure such as bus shelters, and water conservation features. In addition to better understanding cost drivers, LAHD has been working with applicants to reduce costs by creating financing tools to support the use of modular development, using all entitlement benefits available such as parking reductions, and using standardized units that reduce costs while still complying with accessibility requirements. Also, in 2011, the Department transitioned to requiring Guaranteed Maximum Contracts (G-Max Contracts) for all general contractor contracts related to the construction of LAHD-funded multifamily projects. These G-Max Contracts only allow for general contractors to receive a maximum of 14% overhead & profit on projects and eliminate the opportunityfor contractors to pocket cost savings that they may be entitled to with stipulated sum construction contracts. Recommendation No. 1.8 - Programs focused on remodeling and rehabbing structures like Project Homekey should be given funding priorityover larger, publicly funded, new PSH projects. Response: The City of LA submitted 6 of the 13 applicant projects in Homekey Program Round 2 and an additional group of three new projects for the Homekey Program Round 3. Fortunately,the varyingsources offunding available have different priorities and different timelines. For example, programs like Project Homekey focus on acquisition and rehabilitation, while other sources, like HHH, focus on the creation of new units of housing. And as one of the largest cities in America, Los Angeles has the capacity to process all these projects to start construction quickly. The diversity of sources creates an environment to test what works best, including: construction cost control, efficient use of public resources, speed of development, opportunity to provide services, appeal in the marketplace, long term viability of the project, etc. All these factors and more create a healthy environment to provide a big diverse response to a complex problem. As well, it provides the City, and AttachmentA the nation, with knowledge about what responses and which typologies work best for a given population of people. Of note, remodeled or rehabilitated projects are not necessarily smaller or less expensive than newly constructed projects. Recommendation No. 1.9 - The PLA was not approved by the voters for HHH and should not be applied to PSH projects. Response: On April 13, 2018 the Los Angeles Council voted unanimously to adopt an ordinance requiring that Proposition HHH funded projects include a Project Labor Agreements, as a means to seek to address unemployment and underemployment in concentrated poverty within City neighborhoods, including the further promotion and advancement of the skills of the local labor pool, including provisions for local hire and employing transitional/disadvantaged workers who are residents of the City ofLos Angeles as one tool to address these larger issues of systemic poverty and unemployment. As noted above, the vast majority of HHH dollars are committed to projects with this requirement in place. It should be noted that many projects obtained entitlements through Measure JJJ which also requires a Project Labor Agreement. Even if the ordinance was revoked with regard to HHH, the requirement would still be in place as a result of project entitlements. Recommendation No. 1.10 - A new, private market solution for PSH development must be considered. Response: In an effort to Incentlvize the development of PSH projects from market rate developers, the Department of City Planning created the Qualified Permanent Supportive Housing (QPSH) program through Ordinance 185,492. The program was modeled after the Density Bonus Ordinance, but also includes several features that were unique at the time. For example, the QPSH program allowed for unlimited density for projects that were located in an R3 or less restrictive zone, up to five incentives to modify various development standards, and significant parking reductions. In addition, the program allows developers to restrict all the affordable units with rent schedule 1 instead of the more restrictive rent schedule 6. Although many affordable housing developers have utilized the program, very few market rate developers have explored the program and even less have actually proposed a project. One of the reasons for this lack of interest may be due to the complexity of financial instruments that are necessary to construct supportive housing and the compliance requirements tied to these sources of funds AttachmentA (both public and private). Another potential deterrent is the support services requirement that the program requires. Most developers do not have the experience or knowledge required to provide supportive services to the formerly homeless population. Another reason may be that the state Density Bonus program was significantly modified by AB 1763 (2019), AB 2345 (2020), and most recently by AB 2334 (2022) so that it would provide even more development incentives than the QPSH program. Therefore, developers have more profitable altematives to the QPSH program. LAND would welcome any private market solution. To the best of our knowledge there have been no private solutions that combine code compliance with long term operating feasibility. What has been demonstrated in the market are projects with privately financed construction, permanent loans dependent upon extremely low operating costs and property tax abatements coupled with tenants holding Section 8 vouchers. It will be interesting to see how these projects operate long term. Lessons learned from these private market solutions may provide important lessons the City might emulate going forward. Recommendation No, 1.11 - DWP should have one designated electrical and water contact person for each PSH project. Response: This recommendation is not under the purview of LAND. LADWP has been coordinating with other citydepartments and the Mayor's officeto implement ED1, which includes expediting all 100 percent affordable projects, including permanent supportive housing projects. DWP provides project contacts that project developers or their utility consultants can reach directly, and the city has multiple teams aimed at providing project troubleshooting. The City Administrative Officer has launched a new Affordable Housing Liaison Unit, which provides concierge service to support expediting efforts of 100 percent affordable projects, and serves as a direct point of contact between project development teams and the departments. The Mayor's office also has multiple staff members to support project expediting efforts. Between these teams and designated DWP contacts, PSH developers have several designated resources and points of contact aimed at expediting development efforts, for matters related to DWP as well as other departments. s s Karen Bass Mayor October 6, 2023 Samantha P. Jessner Presiding Judge Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple Street, Thirteenth Floor, Room 13-303 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: HHH: Too Few, Too Much, Too Slow Report by the 2022-2023 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Dear Honorable Judge Samantha P. Jessner: The Cityof Los Angeles acknowledges receipt ofthe 2022-2023 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report regarding Housing Vouchers for Low-Income and Homeless Angelenos, its findings and recommendations. The City respectfully submits Attachment A as the City's formal response. The City's response was prepared by knowledgeable staff working in the Los Angeles Department of Housing. For additional questions or comments, your staff may contact Jenna Hornstock, Deputy Mayor of Housing, [email protected]. KAREN BASS Mayor QuJ PAUL KREKORIAN City Council President 200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 303 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 978-0600 MAYOR.LACITY.ORG Attachment A CITY OF LOS ANGELES RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Subject: 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Recommendations: HHH: Too Few, Too Much. Too Slow The below responses were prepared by the Los Angeles Housing Department and the Department of Water and Power. Recommendation No. 1.1 - Whatever remains of HHH funds, ifany, should goto projects that provide more immediate "interim" housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. Response: In the past two fiscal years the City has invested $860,516,405 from other sources in producing and operating 10,000 interim housing beds, ranging from congregate shelters to Project RoomKey motels to Tiny Home Villages and others. Every year to keep these open the City would need to allocate funds for operations ranging from $50 to $267 per unit per night, with an average of $65 per unit per night, or $237 million annually for all 10,000. Permanent housing requires the initial capital investment, but operating costs are much lower and are covered by rental income from residents and federal or county rental vouchers. Permanent housing is not only a better financial investment; it is what moves people from homelessness into being housed. These HHH units are needed to move people from interim beds into homes. HHH is one of the few sources the City has to provide capital funding for permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness. Recommendation No. 1.2 - The City Council, LAHD, and the Mayor's office should prioritize controlling PSH costs and mitigating delays. Response: Despite a global pandemic and related challenges in virtual processing, the pace of development is anything but sluggish. The HHH program has committed financing to 131 projects. Fifty-three projects totaling 3,243 units have been constructed and 52 projects totaling 3,378 units are under construction. The remaining projects are in pre- development and we expect HHH to have contributed to the construction of 8,596 units of Permanent Supportive Housing. Executive Directive 30 streamlining initiative has reduced the number of days for ready-to-issue permits for HHH projects by 154 days. Every month LAHD publishes the attached HHH Summary showing how projects are progressing from early entitlement planning, to construction loan closing, to completion. Recommendation No. 1.3 - Tiny home villages are de facto permanent housing that should be reclassified as such, protected and supported by the City, untilmore substantial permanent housing is available. Response: This recommendation falls outside the purviewof LAHD. TinyHome Villages are constructed and installed with the expectation of operating as interim housing. They Attachment A do not contain individual kitchens or bathrooms, which are key components of permanent supportive housing. The city is utilizing an approach incorporating both interim and permanent supportive housing, and new PSH units are coming on line. Interim housing units serve a specific purpose of providing unhoused residents with strategies to address critical needs while being placed in permanent housing, however units constructed to the standard of permanent supportive housing are needed to address this problem inthe long term. Residents of interim housing, including tiny home villages, receive access to services and support, including but not limitedto on-site caseworkers, housing navigation services, and mental and physical health services. Recommendation No. 1.4 - The City should remove any City-imposed impediment to building any type of safe, affordable PSH project, including container housing and manufactured home projects. Response: This recommendation is not under the purview of LAND, however the city has already implemented this recommendation to the best of its ability. The Mayor issued Executive Directive 1 (ED1), which expedites the entitlement and permitting process for 100% affordable housing developments that are consistent with the underlying zoning for a site, which includes permanent supportive housing projects. In its first 6 months 1,649 affordable units across 22 projects have secured approvals in an average of 37 days, a savings of at least 6 months. There are over 400 projects and 8,500 units in the ED1 pipeline. In June 2023, the City Council directed the Department of City Planning to develop an ordinance that would make ED1 permanent. ED 1 does not preclude based on building type, provided the project is zoning compliant and meets both building and safety requirements and building codes. However in some instances it is prudent for a project, even a permanent supportive housing project, to be subject to the required discretionary review and public hearing process. Streamlining must be applied with care. Recommendation No. 1.5 - The City should remove any lender hesitation by guaranteeing construction loans on container PSH projects. Response: The City's HHH pipeline of deals includes eight modular projects (modular or prefabricated construction includes "container" housing) with financing structures similar to traditionally constructed buildings. Generally, LAHD makes no distinction in the development process between modular and conventional construction. The Housing Challenge, an $120 million competition to test a range of housing innovation supported the advancement of modular projects. Thus far, LAHD has not seen a marked decrease in costs of modular construction compared to traditional construction but as the innovation develops and projects become more common, perhaps the speed of construction will increase and the costs will decrease. LAHD continues to support developers who elect to build modular projects. Recommendation No. 1.6 - The Cityshould immediately put vacant land under its control that is suitable to be used for housing purposes toward safely housing individuals living on the streets, in tents or in vehicles. These sites should be secured and appropriate services provided until such time as permanent housing can be produced. Attachment A Response: In November of 2012, after the dissolution ofthe Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA), the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAND) created the Land Development Unit (LDU) to implement the development of affordable housing on land purchased by the CRA/LAfor affordable housing. In February of 2016, the City of Los Angeles adopted a Comprehensive Homeless Strategy that included strategy 7D, "Using Public Land for Affordable and Homeless Housing." Shortly after the homeless plan was released, the City Administrative Officer (CAO) launched the Affordable Housing Opportunity Sites (AHOS) Initiative to identify City-owned sites identified for affordable housing. Since 2016, the LAHD and the CAO have collaborated on the Land Development and AHOS Initiative by developing common processes and regulations. In general, the CAO is responsible for identifying and evaluating City-owned sites for development, and the LAHD is responsible for selecting developers and negotiating disposition development agreements. In December of 2019, the Los Angeles City Council restricted development of housing on public land by adopting a motion (CP 19-1362) which limits projects on public land to 100% affordable housing, unless it is determined by Council that an increased number of affordable units can be achieved through a different business model. Additionally, LAHD must adhere to the Surplus Land Act (SLA). The SLA is a statute that local agencies must follow when disposing of surplus land. Itwas amended by Assembly Bill 1486 (Ting 2019) as well as other subsequent bills. These amendments modified the SLA to require local agencies across California to submit notices of availability of surplus land to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for listing on the HCD website, and to notify interested developers and certain local public entities. Land declared exempt surplus may be exempted from some or all provisions of the SLA by meeting certain criteria. The city has an ongoing effort through Executive Directive 3 to see ifpublicly owned sites within the City of Los Angeles can be developed with minimal public subsidies, and instructed departments to identify undeveloped or underutilized city-owned land, with the purpose of potential development into interim or permanent housing. Recommendation No. 1.7 - The City must find a new method of developing PSH which allows for both cost and quality controls. Response: Costs for HHH or any affordable housing development need to be put in the context of costs for equivalent market rate developments. Even a quick google search of "multifamily construction costs in California" produces reports from the Terner Center at UC Berkeley, the UC Riverside School of Business, and others showing that market rate construction in all of California, and particularly in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, has Attachment A reached staggering heights. A feasible plan to produce the housing we need must be understood in the context of the broader real estate market. It is possible to compare the costs of affordable housing and comparable market rate developments and identifythe elements that increase costs inaffordable units - prevailing wages, higher energy efficiency standards, operating and replacement reserves, furniture and developer fees - that aren't included in development budgets for market rate projects because they are paid upon sale when the project is completed, or covered by escalating rents over time. Affordable housing project budgets also include holding costs and legal fees involved in assembling "soft" financing from multiple sources. The reliance on layered financing adds time and money, but stretches HHH funding to meet production goals. Without leveraging, HHHwould have produced only 3,900 permanent units. The LAHD staff is committed to finding ways to reduce costs, while retaining the commitment to funding projects that are physically and financially healthy for the decades covenanted. Realizing that some of the highest cost projects were those that had high public agency involvement, the HHH portfolio is divided into "basic" projects that include prevailing wages, higher energy efficiency standards, accessibility standards, and reserves and fees, and a "Housing Plus" category. The Housing Plus projects have been developed on Metro-owned or publicly-owned land and included requirements for community amenities such as neighborhood-serving commercial, child care centers or clinics, more parking spaces than required, or more open space. Others were funded with the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program using the State's cap and trade program, and included additional greenhouse gas reduction features, support of infrastructure such as bus shelters, and water conservation features. In addition to better understanding cost drivers, LAHD has been working with applicants to reduce costs by creating financing tools to support the use of modular development, using all entitlement benefits available such as parking reductions, and using standardized units that reduce costs while still complying with accessibility requirements. Also, in 2011, the Department transitioned to requiring Guaranteed Maximum Contracts (G-Max Contracts) for all general contractor contracts related to the construction of LAHD-funded multifamily projects. These G-Max Contracts only allow for general contractors to receive a maximum of 14% overhead & profit on projects and eliminate the opportunity for contractors to pocket cost savings that they may be entitled to with stipulated sum construction contracts. Recommendation No. 1.8 - Programs focused on remodeling and rehabbing structures like Project Homekey should be given funding priority over larger, publicly funded, new PSH projects. Response: The Cityof LA submitted 6 of the 13 applicant projects in Homekey Program Round 2 and an additional group of three new projects for the Homekey Program Round
• R6

  Page 134
  Holders of HCVs and EHVs navigate a difficult rental market and are given 180 days to find landlords who willaccept their vouchers. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA partially agrees with this finding. The City of LosAngeles has a difficult rental market with a vacancy rate of less than 3%. Although all voucher holders are usually provided with 180 days to find housing, HACLA modified its policy allowing up to 365 days for EHV participants. HACLA is currently evaluating this policy and will soon make appropriate adjustments to ensure that voucher holders have adequate time but not defer the housing search. HACLA is now providing services to voucher holders from a professional housing location/relocation company in order to assist participants in locating housing as soon as possible.
• R7

  Page 134
  Many HCVs/EHVs go unused because initial inspections and necessary re-inspections are not done in a timely manner. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA disagrees with this finding. This finding is vague and the Civil Grand Jury did not identify any evidence supporting this finding. Additional information is provided within HACLA's response to Recommendation 1.9 of this report below.
• R8

  Page 134
  Despite HACLA's landlord outreach and incentive programs, many landlords remain reluctant to accept tenants using HCVs and EHVs. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA agrees with this finding. HACLA is working with Mayor Bass to roll out a communication campaign that willencourage more landlords to accept tenants using vouchers.
• R9

  Page 134
  The CecilHotel in downtown LosAngeles and other SROs have large numbers of vacancies despite readiness and avaiiabiiity to accept HCV and EHV applicants. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA partially agrees with this finding. HACLA agrees that the CecilHotel may have available rental units. However, voucher holders, not HACLA, choose the property and community they live in. HACLA is prohibited by HUD from steering voucher holders to a specific property.
• R10

  Page 134
  HACLA's low Unit Utilization Rate can be attributed in part to HACLA's conservative strategy of issuing no more EHVsthan allocated it by HUD. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA disagrees with this finding. The Civil Grand Jury did not provide evidence that additional issuance of vouchers could increase or expedite utilization. Additional information is provided Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles P 2600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057 833-HACLA-4-U es [email protected] hacla.org HACLA's Response to the 2022-23 LA County Civil Grand Jury Reports in HACLA's response to Recommendation 1.10 of this report below.
• R11

  Page 135
  Many landlords and tenants, and even quite a few HACLA employees are unaware that FEHA prevents landlordsfrom discriminating against tenants who plan to pay rent using government provided vouchers. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA partially agrees with this finding. Many landlords and tenants may be unaware that FEHA prevents landlords from discriminating against tenants who plan to pay rent using government provided vouchers. However, HACLA disagrees with the vague finding that "quite a few HACLA employees" are unaware of this. It appears the Civil Grand Jury interviewed approximately/our voucher department employees in preparing its report. HACLA provides annual trainings for its staff, conducts bi monthly landlord orientations, and issues regular reminders via newsletters and forms to both voucher holders and landlords regarding this subject. HACLA will continue to issue information and guidance to all stakeholders.
• R12

  Page 135
  Although FEHA prevents landlordsfrom discriminating against applicants and tenants who plan to pay rent using government provided vouchers, HACLA, and the LosAngeles CityAttorney do little to enforce this law, and referralsfor enforcement are seldom made. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA partially agrees with this finding. HACLA agrees that some landlords discriminate against voucher holders in violation of the FEHA, but HACLA is not responsible for enforcing the FEHA, nor does it have the authority to do so. When HACLA becomes aware of alleged FEHA violations, it refers those matters to the Housing Rights Center. Additionally, HACLA welcomes enforcement by the City Attorney or other agencies, and we plan to meet with the City Attorney's Office to discuss whether they may be able to assist in this regard.
• R20

  Page 135
  Having HACLA and LACDA performing the same tasks is an unnecessary duplication ofeffort and results in confusion and numerous inefficiencies. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA disagrees with this finding. Each public housing authority is responsible for administering its own program and complying with federal regulations. Each public housing authority operates within the limits of specific jurisdictions authorized by HUD.
• R21

  Page 135
  LACDA has had considerably better results than HACLA in issuing vouchers and moving applicants into homes. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA disagrees with this finding. This oversimplified comparison ignores the reality that LACDA and HACLA operate in different jurisdictions, serve different populations, encounter different challenges, and have different histories. For instance, while this finding is vague as to which voucher program it is referring to, ifthe reference isto the EHV program, the LACDA began issuing vouchers before HACLA because it already had an established team thattransitioned from an expiring program to the new EHV program. HACLA had to hire and train new staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• R22

  Page 135
  HACLA's and LACDA's Section 8 HCV and EHV programs could be combined into one agency by agreement among the Board ofSupervisors, the LosAngeles CityCounciland Mayor, HACLA, and LACDA. Already, numerous cities contract with LACDA to manage Section 8 programs. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 9 2600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles. CA 90057 t. 833-HACLA-4-U [email protected] Vhacla.org HACLA's Response to the 2022-23 LA County Civil Grand Jury Reports HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA disagrees with this finding. Each public housing authority is responsible for administering its own program and complying with federal regulations. Each public housing authority operates within the limits of specific jurisdictions authorized by HUD. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HACLA 1.1 HACLA should consider adopting LACDA's workflowsfor handling HCVs and EHVs, using specialized teams. HACLA RESPONSE - HACLA implemented- this recommendation prior to this report. HACLA already operates in a specialized team model. Staff are responsible for handling specialized tasks such as reviewing applications, conducting housing quality standards inspections, reviewing leases, preparing housing assistance contracts, etc. 1.2 HACLA should consider using temporary workers to perform routine tasks and process paperwork that involve little or not client interface. When hiring, it should also explore recruiting non-traditional employees, such as retired people. HACLA RESPONSE-HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. HACLA isalready using temporary employees. With the support of its bargaining units, HACLA has been utilizing temporary workers to assist with various tasks related to issuing vouchers and preparing housing assistance contracts for the past year. Permanent employees are selected through a certified list of candidates who apply through an open and competitive recruitment. HACLA retirees receiving a public employees retirement benefit must comply with the employment restrictions set forth in their retirement plan. Nevertheless, all members of the public who believe they meet the minimum requirements are welcomed to apply. In an effort to further expedite housing, as of February 2023, HACLA is also utilizing a third-party industry administrator. Nan McKay & Associates, to assist with preparing housing contracts for EHV and project- based voucher holders. 1.3 HACLA should develop methods to assure that inquiries and complaints regarding Section 8 vouchers get meaningful responses within two business days. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. This is already HACLA's internal response time requirement, whether a question or inquiry comes into the customer contact center or directly by phone or email to a staff person in any unit, including EHV and HCV. Supervisors continuously reinforce this requirement with their staffs and monitor its adherence, taking corrective actions as appropriate. Efforts to ensure full staffing in all units contributes to improvement in this crucial metric. 1.4 HACLA's Section 8 application forms and instructions should be shortened and simplified. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. As noted, HACLA is working with consultant Guidehouse and has already identified this as an area of improvement. The collaboration is in the process of shortening and simplifying Section 8 application forms and instructions while still meeting HUD regulations. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 9 2600 Wilshire Blvd.. Los Angeles, CA 90057 t. 833-HACLA-4-U ra info(a)hacla.org ^ hacla.org HACLA's Response to the 2022-23 LA County Civil Grand Jury Reports 1.5 HACLA should give applicantsforms and instructions, along with appropriate assistance, in time so that the applications can be readyforfiling and review at the earliest possible times well before their names come up for vouchers. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. HUD requires that all application income verifications forms and documents be current of voucher issuance. To meet this requirement, applicants are provided application packets with adequate advance notice to complete them timely with assistance available from Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) supported case managers for special program applicants and HACLA staff for Section 8 waitlist applicants. 1.6 HACLA should partner or leverage outside housing specialists to assist clients in navigating the compiex process ofapplying for Section 8 vouchers. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. Applicants are already connected with case workers assigned by LAHSA. They are responsible for providing wraparound services which include assistance with completing voucher applications, obtaining required identity and income documents, housing navigation and search, and facilitating move-ins. To further supplement this effort, HACLA now has an internal housing support specialist team and in June contracted with OPC/TranSystems, a relocation expert, to provide housing search assistance. 1.7 HACLA should schedule inspections at the earliest possible time when it appears that they willbe necessary, even if applications and other details have not been completed. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. HUD requires that the proposed rental unit be inspected within 60 calendar days of the contract date. For this reason, potential rental units cannot be pre-inspected if the owner has not completed a Request for Tenancy Approval for a unit that the tenant has selected. However, HACLA has adjusted its internal process to negotiate the rent immediately upon receipt of the Request for Tenancy Approval, prior to the inspection rather than after, to reduce delays and more efficiently process the work. Prior to this change made in April, rent discussion with the owner took place after the unit was inspected by the inspections team. Manytimes, the inspection was fruitless because the owner was not in agreement with the rent offer. Or, an additional inspection was warranted to validate additional information provided bythe owner, such as additional amenities. Delays in scheduling inspections are generally due to the owner or property manager indicating that unit has not been made ready for a new tenant, the units is not vacant or utilities have not been turned on. Approximately 50% of units fail their first-time inspection because deficiencies are identified in the unit. 1.8 HACLA should creatively use HUD service fees as iandlord incentives, including housing search assistance, application fees, utility hook-ups charges, security deposit assistance and a landlord mitigation fund. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. HACLA already provides several landlord incentives to help facilitate the utilization of vouchers for people experiencing homelessness; these incentives are virtually the same as those offered by the LACDA. For EHV applicants, HACLA payslandlords a $2,500signing on bonus, provides security deposit assistance and up to $5,000 in unit repairs. Fundsfor payingthese incentives are covered with service fees received from HUD. Landlords Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 9 2600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057 833-HACLA-4-U o [email protected] ^ hacla.org HACLA's Response to the 2022-23 LA County Civil Grand Jury Reports willing to house an HCV client experiencing homelessness, are also eligible to receive similar incentives which are paid with Los Angeles County Measure Hfunds. Additional information is available on HACLA's website at hacla.org and attached to this response. See Attachments 1 and 2. These incentives have been offered since inception of the EHV program in 2021, and with passing of the County of Los Angeles Measure H in 2017. To further supplement this effort inthe EHV program, inJune HACLA contracted with TranSystems Corp., formerly known as Overland, Pacific, and Cutler, a professional housing relocation firm, to provide housing search assistance. HACLA has hired designated housing support specialists to also facilitate housing search assistance. These efforts supplement the work of a real estate broker that HACLA has contracted with since the beginning of the EHV program that does outreach to landlords to secure property listings for applicants. 1.9 HACLA should arrange ta have many units in a SRObuilding inspected at one time, sa that several units can be leased without inspectors duplicating efforts and making numerous separate trips ta the site. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. As noted in 1.7 above, HUD requires that the proposed rental unit be inspected within 60 calendar days of the contract date. Forthis reason, potential rental units cannot be pre-inspected ifthe voucher holder and owner have not completed a Request for Tenancy Approvalfor a unit that the tenant has selected. HACLA attempts to group inspections in the same building wherever possible, but inspecting units that applicants have not selected or may never select is not an efficient use of inspection resources. 1.10 HACLA should consider implementing LACDA's mare aggressive method of over-issuingEHV vouchers. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. Although HACLA received 3,365 EHVs, it has issued 4,516 in anticipation that not all voucher holders will be successful. HACLA is closely monitoring the success rate of voucher holders and will issue more vouchers as needed. It is a balancing act to issue the appropriate number of vouchers so that the full allocation is utilized while avoiding: over-saturation and competition among all voucher holders (as well as renters without vouchers) for the same affordable units; and the problem of overissuing vouchers that later need to be rescinded due to full utilization of the allocation or insufficient funding, as has happened with other housing authorities. HACLA's responsible approach is in line with HUD's expectations. 1.11 HACLA should provide easy to read and understand written information about FEHA's antidiscrimination provisions to landlords and tenants, and should schedule seminars and/or webinars to educate the public on this topic. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. HACLA already provides every voucher holder and landlord with easy to read and understand information about FEHA anti-discrimination provisions, including localSource of Income ordinances. Information is also provided in landlord and tenant newsletters and on HACLA's website. HACLA provides this information to landlords during HACLA landlord orientation sessions and in partnership with LAHD in their landlord information Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 9 2600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057 833-HACLA-4-U ra infoCgihacla.org "t hacla.org HACLA's Response to the 2022-23 LA County Civil Grand Jury Reports sessions as well. 1.12 HACLA supervisors and caseworkers should be taught about FEHA and related local ordinances and should be trained on how and when to make referrals to the CityAttorney or the HRC. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report. HACLA staff are already trained on FEHA and related local ordinances at least annually with additional training offered on a bi-monthly basis and assist clients with completing the federal forms. Staff have also been instructed on how to make referrals to HRC regarding local Source of Income discrimination, as HRC is the agency contracted by the City of Los Angeles for Source of Income discrimination enforcement. As noted previously, HACLA welcomes additional enforcement by the City Attorney or other enforcement agencies, and HACLA plans to discuss whether any such assistance may be available later this calendar year. RECOMMENDATION FOR MORE THAN ONE AGENCY 1.20 HACLA's and LACDA's HCV and EHV programs should be administered by one agency by agreement among the Board ofSupervisors, the LosAngeles City Council and Mayor, HACLA, and LACDA. This will eliminate unnecessary duplication ofeffort and expense, enable LosAngeles residents to use an agency with a demonstrated excellent track record and promote efficiency. HACLA'S RESPONSE - This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and is not reasonable. As detailed in the Background section of this response, HACLA has a demonstrated excellent track record as noted by its high performer rating by HUD, near full utilization of budgeted resources; extraordinary leasing efforts this year and continued award of new resources by HUD. As with all PHAS, HACLA administers its program and complies with all federal regulations within its significant jurisdiction as authorized by HUD in an effective manner. HACLA and LACDA collaborate, share best practices, and, more importantly, share one common goal - to end homelessness in Los Angeles. LACK OF HOUSING THE SOCIAL INJUSTICE OF THE 21^ CENTURY
• R24

  Page 143
  There are 10,000 people with vouchers In the City who have been unable to find housing. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA disagrees with this finding. There are approximately 3,100 voucher holders looking for housing at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.7 HACLA must implement procedures to Inspect potential voucherfunded units in a timely manner. HACLA'S RESPONSE - HACLA implemented this recommendation prior to this report and will continue to implement procedures to inspect properties in a timely manner. The average time period from receiving an inspection request to scheduling the inspection is three days, with shortest being one day and longest being 12 days. The primary reason for a delay is the inability to reach the owner or property manager to schedule the inspection. The average time from scheduling an inspection to conducting the inspection is four days, with the shortest being two days and the longest being 14 days. The primary reason is for any delay is that the property has not been made ready for a new tenant (the unit is not vacant, housekeeping and maintenance is required, utilities are not turned on, etc.). Almost 50% of units must be re-inspected to correct deficiencies cited in the initial inspection. HACLA conducts over 60,000 inspections every calendar year - a huge undertaking for any organization. As stated above, HACLA is pursuing technological improvements for scheduling and communicating with property owners and managers. Closing Statement HACLA recognizes that all public entities, including HACLA, can and should improve their delivery of services. People experiencing homelessness face many housing barriers, including discrimination, in a challenging LosAngeles rental market of low vacancies and high rents. HACLA leadership wishes to express its sincere appreciation to HACLA staff for their tireless dedication and to property owners for supporting the agency's mission to preserve, enhance, and expand deeply affordable housing opportunities that improve the quality of life for all Angelenos. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 9 2600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057 833-HACLA-4-U o [email protected] ^ hacla.org HACLA's Response to the 2022-23 LA County Civil Grand Jury Reports Sincerely, (yjioY (3-a5Ua. Cielo Castro ' Doug Guthrie Chairperson, Board of Commissioners President and CEO Attachments 1 and 2 Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 9 2600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057 833-HACLA-4-U ® [email protected] t hacla.org