Housing department reports $2.4 billion invested since 2010; committee approves tenant‑selection procedures and a Bridge Home lease extension

The Los Angeles City Housing and Homelessness Committee on July 1 received a department presentation showing roughly $2.4 billion in capital funding from nine sources invested in affordable and permanent-supportive housing since 2010, and an update on the Alliance program’s placement targets and monitoring plan. The committee unanimously approved two agenda items: a staff-requested 60‑day follow-up on tenant-selection and marketing procedures and a lease extension for a Bridge Home site in District 15.

Why it matters: Committee members said the consolidated funding picture is intended to give the council context for project-level questions and to help evaluate rising construction costs, shifting program priorities and how the city prioritizes limited municipal dollars. Council members pressed staff for comparisons with other cities and for recurring consolidated reporting so elected officials can assess cost and timeline trade-offs.

“Hannah Livion with the Housing Department” presented the investment summary, telling the committee: “A lo largo de los 16 años, LHT ha financiado 17,900 viviendas asequibles,” and that the total development cost (TDC) for affordable housing rose about 56% between 2010 and 2025. Department staff said the nine funding sources together represent about $2.4 billion in capital funds for housing investments and that municipal contributions have increased in recent program rounds.

The department asked the committee to adopt a regular reporting structure so elected officials can see, on an annual or more frequent basis, how the city’s multiple funding streams are being used and how project timelines line up with receipts of outside dollars. Staff also flagged that some projects now receive higher municipal shares up front—raising questions about whether higher initial city investments could shorten project timelines and produce savings over time.

Council members asked for more comparative data. One member referenced a controller’s report noting roughly $850,000 per unit in a prior analysis and asked staff to show how the city’s per‑unit development costs compare with other large California cities. Department staff said they would return with more comparative analysis and proposed an annual (or more frequent) consolidated report and a public dashboard of financing sources.

Alliance program update: Mad Zaball, the administrator who briefed the committee on the Alliance agreement, summarized changes in the amended deal: the earlier goal of 12,915 units was revised to a 14,000 target by the specified deadline and the agreement’s sheltering requirement was increased (the transcript references an increase from 9,800 to 19,600). Zaball said the department currently reports about 12,503 available units plus additional units in process and that, counting available and in-process housing and other program sources, the total is roughly 16,907 units.

Zaball also explained updated counting rules the department will use—such as counting placements even if a single individual is moved multiple times across sites—and described a new third‑party monitor contract (Nardelo and Company) that will verify quarterly reporting. Zaball told the committee that an updated report will be issued at the end of July and that the department will refine numbers and projections as new data arrive.

Implementation details and outcomes: Department implementation lead Brigina de Alcázar introduced operations staff Mónica del Obreal and Carlos González, who described the Alliance program’s eligibility and navigation model. The program prioritizes households currently in city‑funded interim housing (with priority for those who have been in interim housing for one year) and offers navigation teams, case management and connections to landlords. Staff said three households have moved into permanent housing so far and that roughly 605 units are currently identified as active opportunities through the Mission Connect platform.

“We started with people who have been in interim housing the longest,” the implementation team said, and noted a near‑term goal of reaching 600 families by the stated target month. Staff described a model of intensive case management intended to stabilize households in permanent housing and flagged that additional programming (including shared‑housing options) remains under development.

Questions and risks: Council members raised concerns about potential funding gaps if county Section 8 vouchers or other outside funds are reduced. One member warned of an “incoming wave” of need if voucher funding is cut and asked how the city’s amended agreement and program flexibility would mitigate that risk. Staff responded that the amendment provides flexibility to deploy municipal dollars where needed but that some policy decisions (e.g., eligibility design and broader county actions) are beyond the city’s direct control.

Votes at a glance:
• Item 4 — Lease extension with Harbor Interface Services for a Bridge Home site at addresses referenced in staff materials (407 N. Beaken St./515 N. Beaken St.), District 15: approved by roll call, 5–0. (Chair called roll; mover/second not specified in the transcript.)
• Item 2 — Request for staff to prepare a 60‑day report on tenant‑selection/marketing procedures and processing timelines and to identify staffing/capacity constraints: motion seconded and approved by roll call, 5–0.

Public comment highlights: Several members of the public urged clearer affordability targeting and stronger outreach. Becky Lee Kennedy asked the department to separate affordability by income bands so very low‑income seniors and Social Security recipients can qualify; Brisebeth Robledo, representing a housing outreach foundation, said her group has 32 affordable units available and asked council offices to help connect families to those units. A public commenter, Michael Ackerman, made allegations about misconduct and urged investigations; those claims were made during public comment and were not developed further in committee discussion.

What’s next: Staff said it will return with an updated consolidated report and recommended reporting structure (annually or more frequently), a public dashboard of financing sources, and a 60‑day follow-up on tenant‑selection procedures and staffing capacity. The department said its next quarterly monitoring report will be submitted at the end of July, and the third‑party monitor will produce an independent monitoring report under a contract the department said it had signed the same week.

(Reporting note: direct quotes and program names are taken from committee presentations and public comment in the July 1 meeting transcript.)