JOYCE DILLARDP.O. Box 31377Los Angeles, CA 90031Email: dillardjoyce@yahoo.com

PROTEST

Cc.( (~~ ~APR 142009

April 13, 2009

The Honorable Eric GarcettiCity of Los Angeles200 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA90012

Re: City Council for April 14, 2009Agenda Item No. 35CFI09-03722009-10 35th PY Consolidated Plan Second Year Action Plan

o

Dear President Garcetti,

We protest the exclusion of our written comments in determination of theadoption of this plan. They did not appear in the Community DevelopmentDepartment report of March 31, 2009 by Richard L. Benbow, General Manager.

There has been no response to our comments per § 91.105 Citizen ParticipationPlan; Local Governments.

(4) The citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less than 30 days, toreceive comments from citizens on the consolidated plan.

(5) The citizen participation plan shall require the jurisdiction to consider anycomments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally at the public hearings,in preparing the final consolidated plan. A summary of these comments or views,and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasonstherefore (sic), shall be attached to the final consolidated plan.

Please table this matter and handle the Consolidated Plan, accordingly. CitizenParticipation is important, yet the Citizens Unit for Participation is beingreplaced. Why?

Very truly yours,

~&9~1/y<!e Dillard

JDfjEnc

C) _r'·- ~",""iqlfl

:.., ("-):;",.~!"; : \)( ..e';f::~ __

"V'

COMMENTS TO LOS ANGELES PY 35 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2ND YEAR ACTION PLANFrean: "dtllardjovceepvahoo.corn" <dtlta rdjovce givahoocorn >

To: "Gregory Woo" <Gregory.Woa@!adty.org>ccr "Theresa Camlling" <Theresa_Camillng@hud,gov>, "William G. Vasquez"

<W ilfia m _G ,_Va sq uez@hud.gov>ace: dltlardjovce gpaol.com

C PPy3 5 _2 0 09 w 1 0 _budgetw le tte r. pdf (2496 KB)

Sunday, March 22, 2009 1:59 PM

COMMENTS TO THE LOS ANGELES PY 35 .CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2ND YEAR ACTION PLAN Due 3/22/2009

The Notice for Public Comment needs to be published in a readily available publication. We do not know where the notice for the PY 35Consolidated Plan was published, nor did we know the due date until we inquired,

The City of Los Angeles website provides no such information, though the February 17, 2009 Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's letter is onthe website,The Mayor plans to change the structure of governance from a Citizens' Participation Plan to a Public Policy oriented Public-PrivatePartnership, with non-Citizen constituents, with the intent to partner with the Elected Officials, not the People, The current Citizens'Unit for Participation has historically been under-appointed.

The Mayor has taken jurisdiction over the Application Process and has placed Projects directly under his authority bypassing PublicMeetings, Public Comment and Participation,The emphasis is on Public-Private Partnerships throughout this Consolidated Plan,

SUMMARY

The Consolidated Plan is an exercise in control, not of the Purpose of the Congress toward the goals of its Citizens in their UrbanCommunities, Citizen Participation is kept at a minimum, Congress needs to revew, relise and reinforce regulations that tighten up thegray areas in the execution ofthe Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, along with the intent of HR 1 American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act of 2009,

This plan is insufficient to the needs of the underserued communities and geared toward the creation of Public-Private Partnerships(PPP) (P3),

PURPOSE

The U,S, Code, effect as of January 20, 1999, 42USC5301, states the Purpose:

IICritical social, economic, and enlironmental problems facing Nation's urban communities,

II Establishment and maintenance of liable urban communities; systematic and sustained action by Federal, State, and localgovemments; expansion of and continuity in Federal assistance; increased private investment; streamlining programs andimprovernent of functioning of agencies; action to address consequences of scarce fuel supplies,

[J Decent housing, suitable liling enlironment, and economic opportunitiesfor persons of low and moderate income; community development actlvtles which may be supported by Federal assistance,

II Consolidation of complex and overlapplnq Federal assistance programs into consistent system of Federal aid.

The flexible community development funds distributed each year by a formula that considers population and measures of distressincluding poverty, age of housing, housing overcrowdlnq, and growth lag (Mayor's Letter, page 1, dated February 17, 2009.)

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa faces the property value drop and the job losses with the slowing of housing and commercial devetopmentand the potential temporary or long-term financial hardships on the wlnerable residents (Mayor's Letter, page 1, dated February 17,2009.)

The economic development policies have shifted, according to the Mayor, with a focus on poverty allevation and small businessassistance with a direction of job growth (Mayor's Letter, page 2, dated February 17, 2009.)

A new Human Services Deli\.ery System is placed into effect in this Plan. The goal is to develop the system into Public PrivatePartnerships (PPP or P3) (Mayor's Letter, page 2, dated February 17, 2009.) In other words, the Citizen is not the first concern here noris the performance or productilAty. The Privatization of the Consolidated Plan is.

By Califomia State law named the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950-54963, requires notification of meetings of a"Iegislati\e body." The Mayor does not qualify under that definition and his meetings are private and not noticed for the public. ACalifornia corporation, partnership or indilAdual business is considered private and any meetings are not noticed for the public.

Another law is the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250-6276.48, requires all State and Local agencies to gi\.ethe public access. Only non-profit entities that are legislati\e bodies of a local agency are covered. All other corporations, non-profitcorporations, partnerships and individual businesses are not, and the public cannot have public access.

By this intent of halAng Public Private Partnerships, this Plan lAolates Section 5304 Statement of Actlvitles and Review and Section5306 Allocation and Distribution of Funds.

This Plan is designed from the Mayor's. City Controller Laura Chick initiated a report entitled "Special Study to Assess Opportunities toDewlap Public-Private Partnerships" on December 22, 2008. This is now assigned to two City committees, Budget and Finance andAudits and Government Efficiency, under Council File 08-3465.

On page 32 of this report, under an ICMA Survey-Use of Private Service Deli\.ery-US Municipalities and Counties, Operation of DaycareFacilities is at 53.8%.

On page 33 ofthis report Real Estate, Affordable Housing and Joint Development, is considered as is Technical Services, Design/Buildof InfTastructure.

All in all, these Public Private Partnerships relationships may not include any risk on the Private Partnership end. The Taxpayer puts upthe risk in these Public Private Partnerships relationships, and they have no gain. Due Process, a Constitutional issue, is bypassed.

The CDBG Plan is a Public-Private relationship but not partnership, usually with non-profit corporations. The City is to provide DueDiligence in selection and Overslqht in Compliance Issues. It is not a relationship based on profit motivation.CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

According to Public Law known as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Congress is "finds and declares that thefuture welfare of the Nation and the well-being of its citizens depend on the establishment and maintenance of viable urban communitiesas social, economic, and political entities, ... "

Well being can only be gaged by an in;ol\.ed citizen who can express quality of life issues. Free speech is a Constitutional right.

Section 5304 states that there has to be a Citizen Participation Plan.

Included in this is:

In order to permit public examination and appraisal of such statements. to enhance the public accountability of grantees, and tofacilitate coordination of activities wth different levels of govemment, the grantee shall in a timely manner-

B. publish a proposed statement in such manner to afford affected citizens or, as appropriate, units of general localgovemment an opportunity to examine its content and to submit comments on the proposed statement and on the communitydevelopment performance of the grantee;

The notice for this plan, with a due date for comments, was published somewhere. We just do not know which paper was used.Certainly, it is not the LA Times or the Daily News, the two leading newspapers in Los Angeles.

The Mayor's letter of February 17, 2009 appears on two places in the Community Development website under:

Annual Plans and ReportsCitizens' Unit for Participation

Nowhere does the notice for the Public Comment period appear. In today's electronic world, the inclusion of the Internet should beutilized properly.

The website is outdated. Here is a quote; please note the reference to the 26th Year of the plan, not the 35th Program Year:

Every year, the City of Los Angeles receives hundreds of millions of dollars from the Federal govemment for community development.The City requests that money by way of the Consolidated plan, now in its 26th year.

The notification andlor publication of Substantial Amendments has been a problem in accessing. Improper citizen notification leadsinappropriate action of the City of Los Angeles due to the complexities of an issue.

The process is excluding the Neighborhood Councils, chartered for public hearings, in boundaries of local neighborhoods. TheNeighborhood Council provides an opportunity for Citizen Participation in local neighborhoods.

EXAMPLE:

NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT and NOTICE OF IN1ENT TO REQUEST RELEASE OF FUNDS for the projectCamino Nuevo Charter Academy Soccer Field was published in a legal publication, Daily Journal. This publication is not accessible tothe public unless they seek a law library of public library that purchases legal journals. The Substantial Amendment was published inJanuary 26, 2009, in an unknown publication.

Charter Schools are State Local Education Agencies (LEA) and receive direct funding from the State of California for Average DailyAttendance (ADA) and Capital Improvement Funding for property they own or Lease Payments for property owned by another entity. Ifproperty is owned by a Charter School and the Charter School fails, the property reverts to the School District (LEA) who hasjurisdiction over the approval over the charter school.

Other charter schools may be "Affiliated" or received their funding through a Schaal District as the LEA. This is not the case here.

CAMINO NUEVO ACADEMY is the name of the non-profit corporation that includes three charter schools. CAMINO NUEVO HIGHSCHOOL CHAR1ER receives lease payments for the property from the State of California. The request for federal funds was made tolook like the property was public, but it is not. It is owned by 3500 WEST 1EMPLE LLC and agreements of joint use would have to be,.. ~ .. .. .. . .... . ,

entered Into lor the public to use the property. Ihere are liability Issues and sarety Issues.

There are State adjudicated education equity issues since the opportunity lor the funding was not open. Education is under Statejurisdiction, not Federal and Consolidated Plan funding is not designated for school education.

II CAMINO NUEVO HIGH SCHOOL CHARTER is closed, then the improvements to the land are owned by 3500 WEST TEMPLE LLC,not a public agency.

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has been addressing Conflict-ol-Interest with Charter School Non-Profit Boards of Directorsand non-profit land holding companies Boards of Directors.

3500 WEST TEMPLE LLC, not PUEBLO NUEVO DEVELOPMENT, went through the City Planning Process with a Letter ofDetermination Approval dated February 11, 2009 for the construction of new athletic playing fields and courts. There appears to be anownership change on this property since the September 23, 2004 Planning Determination for a Conditional Use to permit a high school.

The City Council and the Mayor do not wait for the Citizen Participation Process.Council File 08-0241, approved April 18, 2008, found that a non-profit entity was needed for a Development Fee Subsidy and PermitWaiver Policy designating PUEBLO NUEVO DEVELOPMENT CAMINO NUEVO ACADEMY SCHOOL. The correct legal name of theschool and Local Education Agency is CAMINO NUEVO HIGH SCHOOL CHARTER and the State School number is 19-64733-0106435, Charter School number 0635.

On September 17, 2008, Council File 08-2234:' the City Council approved the reprogramming of $700,000 in the 34th Year ConsolidationPlan from Fountain Ave. Park to CAMINO NUEVO CHARTER SCHOOL. The Mayor concurred on September 25, 2008.

On December 16, 2008, Council File 08-2234-S1, approved to negotiate and execute a contract with PUEBLO DEVELOPMENT for theconstruction of the field at CAMINO NUEVO CHARTER ACADEMY. The Mayor concurred on December 22,2008.

Note that the Substantial Amendment Notice was not published until January 26, 2009, after the approvals have become legal. Thehearing before the Citizens' Unit for Participation (CUP) was on March 17, 2009.

By not listening and not doing due diligence and due process, the Council and Mayor have created a legal mess and misuse of funds.

Charter School: CAMINO NUEVO HIGH SCHOOL CHARTERNon-Profit Corporation: CAMINO NUEVO CHARTER ACADEMY, as an operator of three charter schoolsProperty Address: 3501-3515 West Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90004Landowner: 3500 WEST TEMPLE LLC

This does not match with the actions olthe City Council and the Mayor.

EXAMPLE:

A Public Notice was issued to review and comment on the intent to provide a $7,120,000 Section 108 Loan Guarantee to VALENZUELAPROPERTIES LLC, a for profit California Limited Liability Company for project VINELAND RETAIL and MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.

The address of the Company is:

425 Kingsford St.Monterey Park, CA 91764

The address of the Project is:

7634 Vineland Ave.Los Angeles, CA 91352

Comment period was December 17, 2009-January 16, 2009 in an publication somewhere. Another comment period was due March 17,2009, published on unknown date in an unknown publication,

Public Benefit is:

CFR§570.209(a)(ii) Provides goods and services to low-moderate income persons per $350.00 of CDBG funds. The City loan of & 7.2million provides low-moderate-income population of 29,539 an average goods and services worth $241 per the eligible person.

VALENZUELA PROPERTIES LLC is NOT a Califomia corporation. The "company address" is a home in Monterey Park of RICHARDVALENZUELA.

The Project property was purchased June 11, 2007 for $630,006, a two-unit property offour stories or less.

On February 17,2009 City Council approved Council File 09-0170 for Execution agreement for the project. The Mayor concurred onFebruary 24, 2009.

The Chief Administrative Office Report 0150-08830-0000 reports on the proposed acquisition of the following properties for $2,135,625 or25% of the total loan:

1. APN 2409-015-040 Multiple Residence2. APN 2409-016-020 Single Residence3. APN 2409-016-021 Vacant Land4. APN 2409-016-022 Single Residence

Property 1 is owned by RICHARD VALENZUELA. Properties 2 and 4 are owned by GUADALUPE CASTRELLON and JOSE andGUADALUPE CASTRELLON, respectively. Property 3 is owned by MARIAL PALUMDO.

Two unnamed men, assumed to be Mr. VALENZUELA and Mr. CASTRELLON, appeared at the CUP meeting on March 17, 2009. Mr.VALENZUELA admitted that there was no corporation formed yet. There was NO disclosure on the current ownership of the propertiesinI<Jlved in the project.

One Notice for Public Comment was published timely, but the CUP hearing was postponed. The other Notice was due date and CUPhearing was March 17, 2009 after the approvals became legal from the Council and Mayor.

This transaction is fraudulent.

EMMPLE:

City Controller Laura Chick issued a report entitled "Blueprint for a Comprehensive Gang Strategy" the day after the comments were duefor the last year's Consolidated Plan PY 34.

This was no coincidence.

On page 2, Ms. Chick changes the City jurisdiction of the funding and implementation:

The key goal of this report is to finally deliver an effective City-wide anti-gang strategy in an expedient, accountable, and transparent.......... #.. • ....... "."

manner. t-or tms reason, VIe recommend that the Mayor'S office take the lead In trus ettort. Unly the Mayor has the authonty and clout tobring all City departments together and provide regionalleadelShip.

This new strategy and reorganization Vlill not require additional funding, but Vlill require redirecting existing funds to more targetedprograms, eliminating duplication and streamlining programs, and implementing perfonnance-based contracting and monitoringpractices. A number of these important steps require significant changes in the way the City has historically approached its anti-gangefforts. Changing some of these approaches Vlill require the City's politicalleadelS to support initiatives that favor a cityVlide solution tothe gang problem, at times to the detriment of more parochial departmental or community interests. In the end, tile City can accomplishmore Vlith the resoU/ves it has if it strategically and organiz ationally focuses these resources.

Better coordination and collaboration on anti-gang programs is needed desperately both Vlithin City departments and betveen the Cityand its regional counterparts. Since it is Vlidely knooo that gangs do not respect artificially set municipal orgovemmental boundaries,the City of Los Angeles' gang problem is cleartya regional problem shared Vlith Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict (LAUSD) and numerous other cities and school districts in the area. As such, the best solutions to the problem IAOlIldbethrough regional partnelShips and not limited to those undertaken solely by City govemment wthin its city limits. In keeping wth thisreality, the blueprint VIe suggest for the City includes fostering and developing a regionalized approach to the gang problem wth LACOllnty, LAUSD and ethers. And wile VIe are encouraging such regional partnelShips, VIe also emphasize approaches the City shouldtake to address the problems wthin its 000 City-sponsored and funded anti-gang programs and activities. We advocate that both theregional and cityVlide initiatives be put in motion simultaneously and immediately.

In other words, the approach is non-jurisdictional and therefore not subject to Public Input, Public Hearings or Public Comment on thePlan or the Funds .. The Mayor's Office does not follow under the State of California Ralph M. Brown Act.

On page 4, Ms. Chick changes the youth and Family Development Projects managed under the Consolidated Plan to one single prioritymanaged by an Anti-Gang Office, under the jurisdiction of the Mayor:

This blueprint calls for the City to reposition its departments and redirect its funding priorities to provide the range of services coveringthe entire pyramid. Most notable wfl be transitioning the youth and family development efforts out of the Community DevelopmentDepartment (CDD) into a neVliy established Anti-gang Office that is given a range of responsibilities for targeted prevention, interventionand reentry, including community needs assessments for such services. This new Anti-gang Office lAOuldalso negotiate new contractswth community-based organizations (CBOs) and religious-based organizations (RBOs), provide accountability and outcome measures,evaluate and oversee activities to measure results, coordinate multi-agency collaboration, conduct research on best and leading anti-gang practices, and provide training to agencies regarding how they can meet the new contract requirements and to City departments onanti-gang strategies.

The Mayor has no open process for projects with the application process being eliminated. The Mayor then chooses the projects of hischoice with the accompanying budget. The Mayor has jurisdiction over the programs and the funding. The Mayor then providesaccountability and measurement. The Mayor now provides training to the agencies.

On page 13, Ms. Chick charts the structure of the Anti-Gang Office, under the Mayor, then under an Anti-Gang Office Director with thefollowing units:

Human Services and Neighborhood Development Unit:1. Human Services and Family Development2. Family Development Netv.ork3. Youth and Family Centere4. Youth Opportunity System5. Neighborhood Development6. Centralized Anti-Gang Programs

Gang Reduction Unit

1, Commumty Liaison2, Departments Liaison3, Inten:1isciplinary Community Assessment Teams (CAT)

Administrative Services Unit1, Grants Management

Policy Research and Evaluation Unit2, Research and Development3, Program Evaluation

In order to qualify for Youth and Family Services, one must be categorized as a Gang Member.

There was no Substantial Amendment for this change of programs,

The Citizen never enters this picture in accordance to the goals of the Consolidated Plan,BYLAWS OF THE CITIZENS' UNIT FOR PARTICIPATION:

The April 11, 2005 bylaws call for appointments of this unit Those appointments are designated as follows:

2 Representative Appointed by the Mayor2 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 12 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 22 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 32 Representatives Appointed by the Councilmember from Council District 42 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 52 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 62 Representatives Appointed by the Councilmember from Council District 72 Representatives Appointed by the Councllrnember from Council District 82 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 92 Representatives Appointed by the Councilmember from Council District 102 Representatives Appointed by the Councilmember from Council District 112 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 122 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 132 Representatives Appointed by the Councilmember from Council District 142 Representatives Appointed by the Council member from Council District 151 Representathe from the Alfordable Housing Commission1 Representative from the Community Action Board (CAB)1 Representative from the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Commission (HACLA)1 Representative from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority1 Representative from the Los Angeles Countywide Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Ad,,;sory Committee1 Representative from the CRA Enterprise Zones-Business Adwsory Councils

Total Membership: 38

The current membership is:

Peter Lassen, Representative from Council District 1Bill Huber, Representattvs from Council District 3Mary Garcia, Representative from Council District 4Alma Woods, Representative from Council District 8Michael Chang, Representative from Council District 10., " -... - ~.... ". _. " . "

Kalla u'Armco, Kepresenlall'.e trom couocu Ulslncl 11Mindy Meyer, Representative from Council District 11Becky Bendikson, Representative from Council District 12Candido Marez, Representative from Council District 12Glenn Gritzner, Representative from Council District 13Raul Estrada, Representative from Council District 14

Total Current Membership: 11Percentage of Membership required in Bylaws: 29%

The Mayor and 13 Councilmembers out of 15 cannot even be bothered to appoint representatives, as required, Seven Council Districtsonly have one representative, six ha'.e none, and two have the required representation, The participating commissions' representativesare non-existent.

The breakdown is:

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: none

Council member Ed P. Reyes, CD 1: oneCouncil President Pro Tempore Wendy Greuel CD 2: none

Council member Dennis P. Zine CD 3: oneCouncil member Tom LaBonge CD 4: oneCouncil member Jack Weiss CD 5: none

Councilmember Tony Cardenas CD 6: none

Councilmember Richard Alarcon CD 7: none

Councilmember Bemard C, Parks CD 8: oneCouncil Assistant President Pro Tempore Jan Perry CD 9: none

Councilmember Herb J. Wesson Jr. CD 10: oneCouncilmember Bill Rosendahl CD 11: twoCouncilmember Greig Smith CD 12: twoCouncil President Eric Garcetti CD 13: oneCouncilmember Jose Huizar CD 14: oneCouncil member Janice Hahn CD 15: none

Affordable Housing Commission: none

Community Action Board (CAB): none

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Commission (HACLA): none

Los Angeles Homeless servces Authority: none

Los Angeles Countywide Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Advisory Committee: none

CRA Enterprise Zones-Business Adloisory Councils: none

CONCLUSION;

The City Council and Mayor have no respect for the system created to effect the goals of the Consolidated Plan and no compliance withany part of Citizen Participation in 24CFR §91.115, §91.1 05 and §91.505 by ;;rtue of under-appointments.

The City is in ;;olation of the Citizens' Participation Plan requirement.

RECONFIGUERA TION OF THE CITIZENS' UNIT FOR PARTICIPATION AND THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN APPLICATION SYSTEMINTO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN APPLICATION AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Hidden in a reconfiguration of the CITIZENS' UNIT FOR PARTICIPATIONA is the elimination ofthe Citizens Participation Plancompletely. This is not explained in any detail, other than a ""rbal explanation at the CUP meeting on March 17, 2009.

The intent of the Mayor is to create an Executive Director with an Advisory Committee on the order of the Workforce lnvestrnent Boardto oversee the Consolidated Plan.

The Application System for projects has been eliminated on the 34th Year Consolidated Plan.

The Workforce lnvestment Board is a non-profit public benefit corporation, housed at City Hall.

Article II-Purpose, in part, per the Bylaws:

To serve in partnership v.ith the City of Los Angeles as the City's lead advocate for the value of a trained ""lkforce and for a unifiedstrategy resulting in economic health, vomer opportunity and upward mobility.

To provide public policy guidance for, and exercise oversight v.ith respect to, activities v.ithin the City of Los Angeles, financed in OOoleor in part vtith funds from the U.S. Department of Labor, in pl;lrtnership v.ith the elected officials of the City of Los Angeles, and toexercise al/ other responsibilities authorized by the Walk force Investment Act 29 U.S. C. 2801 et seq. and other applicable state andfederal laws and regulations.

To provide public policy guidance and exercise oversight v.ith respect to activities undertaken to tile City of Los Angels staff inadministering Department of Labor and the local, state, and federal vonctorce development funds.

_.To seek, in partnership v.ith the City of Los Angeles, to provide jobs for City residents, v.ith emphasis on upgrading iover levelemployees; to increase job opportunities presently unavailable to certain persons 000 experience multiple barriers to employment toobtain increased oetticipetion from private industry employers, and to develop training programs and employment service pack agesdesigned to meet the specific needs of such employers.

The membership is constituent based, not citizen based:

n BusinesslTrade AssociationsI] Business Representing Small Businesso Business Representing High Growth Industries1I Business Representing Labor Needs1I Business Offering Employment Opportunitieso Business Offering Long-Term Employment PotentialI] Business in Key Southem Califomia Industries1I Labor Organizationso Educational Entities

U Cornmumty-Baseo UrganlzatJOns[J Economic Delelopment Agencies[] Representative of Employment and Training activities carried out under the Community Service Block Grant and by theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development. and the WIA Title 1 Program[] State Employment Department[] Agencies dealing with YouthI] Vocational Rehabilitation Agencyu Job Corps[J Native American Programs[] Title V Older Americans[J Los Angeles County Department of Social Services

This constituent-based Private Public Partnership is not in conformance with the laws around the Consolidated Plan.

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP) ADDITION

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was been passed with the following provisions under the Title I of the Housingand Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), and under divisionS, title 11\ 01 the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ("the Act") (Public Law 110-289):

That in selecting projects to be funded, recipients shall give priority to projects that can award contracts based on bids iMthin 120 daysfrom the date the funds are made available to the reciptents:

Provided further, That in administering funds appropriated or otheriMse made available under this heading, the SecretaI}' may waive orspecify altemative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation in connection iMth the obligation by the Secretory or theuse by the recipient of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and theenvironment), upon a finding that such waiver is necessary to expedite or facilitate the timely use of such funds and WJuld not beinconsistent iMth the overall purpose of the statute.

The amount is $1,000,000,000 of which $32,860,870 is allocated to the City of Los Angeles.

The NEW GENERATION FUND was approved by City Council on October 24, 2007, Council File 05-2565-S3. The Mayor concurred onOctober 29, 2007.

Since that time, the NEW GENERATION FUND has changed from City composition into a Public-Private Partnership on October 15,2008 when City Council approved Council File 07-2438-S8. We do not know if this Choice was the result of an open Request forProposal Process.

Per Chief Administrative Officer Report 0220-00540-0820 dated April 29, 2008, Council File 08-0958.

The Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) requests authority to negotiate and execute a Loan Agreement iMth NEW GENERA TlONFUND, Umited Liability Company, a Molly o"",ed subsidial}' of ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS (ECP), fonnerly kno"", asTHE ENTERPRISE FOUNDA TlON, to implement the NEW GENERAL FUND (NGF) PROGRAM. The LAHD collaborated iMth ECP todevelop the NGF program, a revolving loan program that provides accessible capital at low-interest rates to affordable and supportivehousing developers as a means of encouraging growth in supportive and affordable housing sectors.

ENTiERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS is a-Maryland corporation, incorporated on December 8, 1986.

There was no competitive bidding or open process to award the contract.

Ihere was no Gltlzen I-'artlclpatlon process.

CDBG RESOURCES AND PROPOSED EXPENDITURES

PUBLIC SERVICES

Several project names have been changed. What is not described is the transfer of intent and use of the funds.

These are:

7. Cash for College, formerly LA Youth at Work for $70,285.11. Family Del.elopment Portals formerly YFC13 Fresh Food Access Program moved to CDBO Category16 and 17 Human servces Delil.ery System redesigned18. LA's BEST, which is operated from the Mayor's office19. Gang Reduction and Youth Development formerly LA Bridges II Gang Intervention Program26. Youth Opportunities Movement -SFV, Boyle Heights and Watts

SPECIAL ACTIVmES BY CBDOS

31. DAY LABORER increases by $189,640 with no substantiation of necessity of need since construction has declined.

34 and 37 GANG REDUCTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT formerly LA BRIDGES II GANG INTERVENTION PROGRAM for$874,991 and zero, respectively. This is not a CBDO, this is the Mayor.

35 and 36 HUMAN SERVICES DELIVERY SYSTEM CBDO redesigned and reconfigured in the amounts of $87,881 and $4,481,809,respectively, that was transferred into the Mayors office and is not a CBDO. It is rumored there are 15 Family Development Networks,but there are no details of the breakdown of the $4,481 ,809.

41 PROJECT SAVE for $427,500 may have been YOUTH FAIR CHANCE (yFC) in past years and recently HIGH SCHOOL SAFEPASSAGES PROGRAM by COMMUNITY BUILD INC. This has been transferred into the Mayor's Anti-GangOffice and the name has been changed, but with no Public Participation.

43 RIVER RANGERS for $142,500. Who is the CBDO and under what City jurisdiction since the work is about the LA River, not aspecific community.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

44. BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORA nON for $400,000 is restored to help developers. During the credit stall, this type ofallocation may not be used timely and not create jobs. Infrastructure has been stalled, delaying job creation. A more carefulconsideration of small business del.elopment should be considered rather than such a restricted category. This is just another Public-Private Partnership that cuts out Public Participation.

45. BRING BACK BROADWAY STREETSCAPE for $1,000,000 may not produce the intended economic development. Broadway hasmany small businesses, Latino in nature. Downtown has been developed to allow housing purchase and rentals for the affluent 20-30year old. Though the historic nature of the theaters may be the basis for this project, the intent for low-to-moderate income citizens tobe served is minimal.

52 MARLTON SQUARE for $1,700,000 is a project that has never been executed. Where is the guarantee that it will accomplish itsinten!.

HOUSING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

53. AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND PROGRAM DELIVERY for $6,646,495. The City of los Angeles will not let the Public seea complete lnventory.

NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS

64 CITY TREES (LACC) or los Angeles Conservation Corps for $862,573 is a total waste of funding. No consideration has been gi""nfor the State declared drought, nor is there an inventory oftrees. With the intent to add shade and green amongst the concrete, no realimplementation plan exists.

65 and 67 CODE ENFORCEMENT (CITYWIDE PACE) for $2,057,462 with an increase of $705,156 and CODE ENFORCEMENT(CITYWIDE PACE) CITY ATTORNEY for $603,127 with an increase of $147,145 does not accomplish any benefit since it is NOT gearedas a public safety issue. Grandfathering of building codes is not taken into consideration upon inspection. This program is not for rentalunits exclusively. but for private property owners. Owners complain they are forced into making repairs that make it difficult to financeand/or difficult to maintain rents at an affordable level.

68 HOllYWOOD BEAUTIFICA llON TEAM for a new allocation of $200,000 as a Multi-Phase Project Allocation needs to besubstantiated by facts as to the relationship to this type of funding. Merchants may need to pick-up these costs, not the taxpayer.

71 WA TTSTAR THEATER for a new allocation of $2,000,000 as a Multi-Phase Project Allocation needs to be SUbstantiated by facts asto the relationship to this type of funding. Merchants may need to pick-up these costs, not the taxpayer.

ADMINISTRATION/PLANNING

The following reconfigurations, restorations or additions are an attempt to restructure the Consolidated plan without a SubstantialAmendment and without the Public Participation. The Consolidated Plan then become constituent based, not Citizen based with thePublic-Private Partnership representing the interests of the elected officials.

76 CIllZENS' UNIT FOR PARTICIPATION is decreased by $40,000 as a reconfiguration.81 CONSOLIDATED PLAN APPLICAllON SYSTEM is decreased by $89,500 as a reconfiguration82 CONSOLIDATED PLAN APPLICA llON AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT formerly CIllZENS" UNIT FOR PARTICIPATION is added for$228,361.83 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY is added for $107,53290 PLANNING DEPARTMENT is added for $101,121 as a restoration.

CEQA

The 2009-2010 Program Year 35 Action Plan WilL have a significant effect on the environment under Mandatory Significant Findingsand an Initial Study should be engaged.

APPLICATION PROCESS

The application process excludes outsiders to participate. City Departments and selected private non-profit corporations are asked. Thishas occurred during the tenure of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and as he has stated, the opening is for Public-Private Partnerships.

PROGRAM COMPLIANCE

Program compliance is an internal factor, with no reports issued, other than CAPER to any improvement (gain) or reduction of a.. . .-.." ~ ..

prootern. Ihere IS not an intervewee process With the recipients 01the program money. Consequently, many groups Whose IUndmg ISbeing cut are verbal in their outrage over the elimination of their programs, without consultation and due process.

Other projects that become non-usable of program funds can almost be predicted. The entity is a pet project of the Mayor orCouncil member, has virtually no support or is even too premature in the process. Consequently, this Action Plan is more a combinationof projects ready and promised.

Not a good mix for compliance, successful outcomes and Community Development.

COMMUNI1Y BASED DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS (CBDO)

The criteria of this category, which is meant to include the stakeholders in the related census tracts, has been by-passed. This hasoccurred by placing projects, as stand alone, even though they are continuous.

Certification is an internal process with no records available for input to this process.

None are distinguished as being exempted from the Service Cap by the following criteria (March 1, 1998 EXEMPTING CBDOSERVICES FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE CAP):

1. job training & placement and other "employment support" services2. any service pursuant to an approved Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy

CODE ENFORCEMENT

Per Section 5305, the eligible activities include:

4. code enforcement in deteriorated or deteriorating areas in voicb such enforcement, together iMth public or private improvementsor services to be provided, may be expected to arrest the decline of the area.

Decline of an area includes assessment of property values and income. Since the real estate market spiked, many areas have changedcomposition. Some areas are affected by foreclosures. There needs to be backup analysis to see where the area of need exists, notjust a citywide approach to control land and landowners.

PUBLIC SERVICES:

8. provision of public services, including bul nollimi/ed 10 Ihose concemed iMlh employment, crime prevention, child care, health,drug abuse, education, energy conservalion, mlfare or recreation needs, if such services have nol been provided by the unil ofgeneral local govemment (through funds raised by such unit, or received by such unit from the State in v.hich it is located) duringany part of the tmlve-month period immediately preceding the date of submission of the statement iMth respect to v.hich fundsare to be made available under this chapter, and v.hich are to be used for such services, unless the SecretaI}' finds that thediscontinuation of such services was the result of events not iMthin the control of the unit of general local govemment, exceptthat not more than 15 per centum of the amount of any assistance to a unit of general local govemment (or in the case of nOI1-entitled communities not more than 15 per centum stateV>ide) under this chapter including program income may be used foractivities under this paragraph unless such unit of general local govemment used more than 15 percent of the assistancereceived under this chapter for fiscal year 1982 or fiscal year 1983 for such activities (excluding any assistance receivedpursueni to Public Law 98-8), in v.hich case such unit of general local govemment may use not more than the percentage oramount of such assistance used for such activities for such fiscal year, v.hichever method of calculation yields the higheramount, except that of any amount of assistance under Ihis chapter (including program income) in each of fiscal years 1993through 2001 to the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles, each such unit of general govemment may use not morethan 25 percent in each such fiscal year for activities under this paragraph, and except that of any amount of assistance underthis chapter (including program income) in each of tile fiscal vears 1999, 2000, and 2001, to the City of Miami, such city may use

.. "'" ~not more than 25 percent in each fiscal year for activities under this paragraph. ..

Energy conservation, especially water, is of vital concern to those Citizens qualified for this plan. Renewable energy implementation isbeing discussed, but no plans are made for the planning in this low-moderate areas.

Joyce DillardP.O. Box 31377Los Angeles, CA 90031