rmboyle heights nc - final cert review-2

8/3/2019 RmBoyle Heights NC - Final Cert Review-2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rmboyle-heights-nc-final-cert-review-2 1/15

of 15

CITY OF LOS ANGELESINTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

Date: May 16, 2002

To: Claudia Dunn, Assistant General Manager

From: Romerol Malveaux, Director Field Division

CC: Greg Nelson, General Manager

Subject: Evaluation of Certification Application for BOYLE HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL 01-038

Area/DONE Region: East LA Area, DONE Region 2

Proposed Name: Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council

Field Staff Assigned: Marco Perez, Project Coordinator Michele S. Cuevas, Sr. Project Coordinator

Date Application Submitted: December 31, 2001

Date of Public Hearing: May 21, 2002

.

GENERAL COMMENTS

The application is complete with no missing elements.

BOUNDARIES AND AREA PROFILE

The Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council has requested certification for the followingbounded area:

North: From LA River and Mission Rd. joining Marengo St.

South: 25th St. (City Limit)

East: Indiana St. (City Limit)

West: L.A. River

The applicant group has provided a map that concurs with the written boundary description.The boundary is compact and contiguous. The boundaries as proposed comply with the20,000 minimum residential requirement set forth by the Plan. The boundaries abut theHistoric Cultural, Downtown L.A., Greater Valley Blvd., LA-32, Lincoln Heights and BoyleHeights-Eastside Neighborhood Councils. There are no orphaned areas.



of 15

The rationale for the proposed boundaries as presented by the applicant group in their application is based on historical and geographical facts, and on the existing community plan.The applicant group states, “The proposed boundaries are based on census tracts groupingsthat the LA City Planning Department developed as early as the Mid 1850’s which was knownas the ‘Barancas Blanca.’ When Mr. Boyle purchased the properties in this area for

development the name changed to Boyle Heights. Since then this area has been traditionallyknown as the Boyle Heights Community.”

The applicant group would represent the following census tracts:

203500, 203600, 203710, 203200, 203800, 203720, 204420, 204410, *206040, *206030,204200, 204300, *206050, 204600, 204120, 203900, 204910, 204810, 204700, 204110,204820, 204920, 205110, 205120

*Only part of the census tract falls within the proposed boundaries

When the applicant group submitted their application for certification they indicated anoverlap with the proposed boundaries of the Greater Valley Blvd. Neighborhood Council(GVBNC) and the Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council (LHNC).

The boundary overlap with Lincoln Heights has been mentioned to be due to the LA CountyUSC Medical Center. It has been proposed by the BHNC, as a shared boundary with theLHNC but it is not indicated in their boundaries.

In more recent developments, on March 04, 2002, the Department of NeighborhoodEmpowerment received a Letter of Intent from a forming group in Boyle Heights under thename of the Boyle Heights East Side Neighborhood Council (BHESNC). The proposed

boundaries of this group overlap with those of the BHNC. The BHESNC’s leadership andboundaries were originally within the GVBNC. Due to a need to address local issues, theBHESNC emerged and has been organizing since then. The boundary overlap is as follows:‘ Wabash Avenue on the north, Soto St. on the west, Indiana St. on the east to Eagle St. toEuclid St. to Lanfranco St. to Mott St. to Whittier Blvd on the south with an extension alongMarietta Street starting at Whittier Blvd connecting to 8 th St., then going east on 8 th to LorenaSt. to Olympic to Soto St. to 8th St to Marietta St.

Boundary Overlap with the Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council (LHNC):

The applicant group has indicated a boundary overlap with the LHNC in their application.The overlap with the LHNC is described as the area of the LA County USC Medical Center.Despite the mention of this overlap in the application, the area is not defined within theboundary description of the BHNC. The staff has verified that the boundaries applied for bythe BHNC do not overlap with the LHNC.

Disputed Boundary overlap with proposed Greater Valley Blvd. Neighborhood Council(GVBNC):



of 15

On December 31, 2001 the BHNC submitted their application for certification. The GVBNCsubmitted their application on January 28, 2002, which was within twenty- (20) business daysof the BHNC application submittal.

The boundary overlap with the proposed BHNC originally extended south to 4 th St. between

Soto St. on the west and Indiana St. on the east. The boundary agreement reached by theGVBNC and the BHESNC has greatly reduced the overlap between the GVBNC and BHNC.The current overlap is bounded by Marengo St. on the north, Wabash St. on the south,Indiana St. on the east, and Soto St. on the west. This area can also be identified as censustract 203200 with a total population of 4,961.

The GVBNC identifies the area as ‘Wabash Corridor’, which consists of a commercial andresidential corridor. It is indicated that the area shares a common interest throughout theproposed boundaries of the GVBNC. The GVBNC states in their application, “Thiscommunity has been organized into a group (Wabash Unidos) for several years to protecttheir unique area against redevelopment impacts that would destroy their community”.

According to the GVBNC, the reason for the boundary overlap is due to City agencies postingsigns establishing community boundaries thus creating boundary confusion which has“...allowed individuals to claim large populated areas without following the City Charter, the‘Plan for a City Wide System of Neighborhood Councils’ or working with DONE.”

In the GVBNC application there is a letter of support from the Salesian Boys & Girls Club of Los Angeles & Salesian Family Youth Center. (See attachment.) The organization is locatedon Wabash Ave., which is in the disputed area. The GVBNC also collected 396 signaturesfrom within the initial disputed area with the BHNC. The ‘Wabash Corridor’ or census tract203200 lies within the disputed area.

The BHNC indicates in their application that maps and other city and state land usedocumentation clearly support this region as being contiguous with Boyle Heights.Furthermore, it is stated that, “These areas have historically and contemporarily do lay claimto being part of the Boyle Heights region of LA. Furthermore the proposed BHNC boundariesis also reflected in the LA City plans now and dating back to the mid 1800’s.” The BHNCfurther mentions that while maps and other city and state land use documentation informationidentify the area as Boyle Heights, that they are willing to put it to a vote. In the application itwas proposed by the applicant group to send mailers to 10-20% of those represented in thearea. This proposal was never officially proposed to the GVBNC. The BHNC believes thatone possible reason for the overlap is due to the GVBNC’s boundaries being made up of ‘little pieces’ and that they may have difficulty meeting the minimum residential populationrequirement of 20,000. It is further stated by the applicant group, “Further investigationreveals that the [GVBNC] (more than likely), does not qualify for any of the 3 possibleexemptions as reflected in section 9 of the application form.”

As early as August 30, 2001 forming groups in and around the Central City area were invitedto participate and identify their boundaries along with other proposed neighborhood councils.The BHNC identified a boundary overlap with the GVBNC and in attempts to resolve thedispute the applicant group agreed to dialogue with the GVBNC. The boundary overlap at



of 15

that time extended from Marengo St. on the north, 4th St. on the south, Indiana St. (City limit)on the west, and Soto St. to Wabash St., to Mott St. on the west. The purpose of thismeeting was to introduce boundaries, generate dialogue and resolve any overlaps.Boundary rationales were presented, however the two groups did not reach any agreement.

On December 5, 2001, CORO of Southern California, in collaboration with the HumanRelations Commission, facilitated a boundary dialogue workshop as part of their Neighborhood Leadership Program (NLP) Workshop with the GVBNC. Invited to participateat that meeting were the BHNC, LA-32 NC, and LHNC. Both the BHNC and GVBNCpresented their boundaries, reasoning, and justifications. No solutions were proposed and asa result, no boundary agreement was reached. At this meeting leadership from the BHNCindicated that they could not enter into any boundary agreements, since the members of their council had not granted authorization to do this. Another reason noted by the BHNCleadership for their unwillingness to enter into any boundary negotiations was that there wasan improbability that the GVBNC would submit an application.

After this boundary dialogue and due to the Holidays, the GVBNC was inactive until midJanuary when they resumed activity and prepared to submit their application. After thedepartment received the GVBNC application, a boundary overlap letter was sent to both theGVBNC and BHNC in early February. A boundary dialogue meeting was scheduled for March 4, 2002 between the two applicant groups. Due to scheduling conflicts and other family commitments the GVBNC informed the department that they would not be able toattend, so the meeting was canceled the meeting.

On April 17, 2002 a boundary dialogue meeting was scheduled. The BHNC, GVBNC, andthe BHESNC were invited to participate. At the beginning of the meeting a member of theBHNC stopped by to inform everyone present that the BHNC would not be participating due

to other commitments. The BHNC and GVBNC have not scheduled another dialogue as of the writing of this report. The BHNC has been informed by the department of the remainingoverlap area with the GVBNC and has expressed to the department an interest in maintainingthe disputed area within the BHNC boundaries.

Following is an analysis of the disputed area:

CRITERIA USED(not in order of importance)

BHNC GVBNC Comments

Community Supportfor Boundaries

Inconclusive Inconclusive Neither group has significantsignatures within the disputed area.

Boyle Heights

Community Plan

X The area is within the Boyle Heights

Community Plan

School ServiceAreas

X Residents of the disputed areaattend elementary, middle schooland high school in Boyle Heights.

Police Districts Inconclusive Inconclusive LAPD Hollenbeck Division servicesthe entire BHNC and GVBNC area.

Fire Districts X Service area within the boundariesof Fire Station 2, which serves

Boyle Heights.



of 15

Census Tracts Inconclusive Inconclusive The entire area is within one censustract 203200

Zip Code Inconclusive Inconclusive The disputed area is within 90033Zip code, which includes additionalportions of the BHNC and GVBNC

boundaries.

Geography/physicalbarriers X The 10 Freeway acts as a border between the disputed area and theremaining boundaries of the

GVBNC.

Population X If a smaller NC population gives anarea greater representation, the

GVBNC is significantly smaller thanthe BHNC.

Community Support (Signature Collections and Plotting)The signature plotting indicates that neither applicant submitted a significant number of signatures from within the disputed area. This criteria does not provide evidence in supportof either proposed Neighborhood Council.

City Planning MapsThe entire area in dispute is entirely in the East Los Angeles Community Plan Area of BoyleHeights. This criteria supports the BHNC boundaries.

School Service AreasResidents of in the entire disputed area attend Evergreen Elementary, Belvedere MiddleSchool and Roosevelt High School, all in the community of Boyle Heights. This criteriasupports the boundaries of the BHNC.

Police Service AreasThe LAPD Hollenbeck Division services the entire area in dispute and the Boyle Heights andGVBNC area. Therefore, this criteria does not provide evidence in support of either proposedNeighborhood Council.

Fire DistrictsFire Station 2 serves the disputed area; the boundaries serviced by the Fire Station are allwithin the Boyle Heights community. Fire Station 16 services El Sereno and the HillsideVillage area, ending their service area at the 10 fwy, just short of the disputed area. Thiscriteria supports the BHNC boundaries.

Census Tracts

The area in dispute is entirely within one census tract - 203200. This criteria does not provideevidence in support of either proposed Neighborhood Council.

Zip codeThe area in dispute is entirely within the 90033 zip code. The zip code includes additionalportions of the BHNC and GVBNC boundaries. This criterion does not provide evidence insupport of either proposed Neighborhood Council.



of 15

Geographical or Physical Barriers such as FreewaysThe disputed area is south of the 10 freeway, which divides it from other areas within theGVBNC boundaries. This indicates support for the BHNC.

The department recommends that the disputed area be certified within the boundaries as proposed by the Boyle Heights Neighborhood. Although the GVBNC submitted signatures in support of their NC from the area, key criteria such as the community Plan boundaries, school and fire service areas, and the presence of physical barriers, identifies the area as being a part of the Boyle Heights community.

Disputed Boundary Overlap with the forming Boyle Heights-East Side NeighborhoodCouncil (BHESNC):

On March 4, 2002, the department received a Letter of Intent from the BHESNC proposingthe following boundaries: Alcazar St. to north, 4th St. on the south, Indiana St. on the east

(city limit) and Soto St. on west. The BHESNC submitted 221 signatures in support of theBHESNC with the Letter of Intent along with a map of the proposed boundaries. (Seeattachment.) The Letter of Intent indicates that the BHESNC held a ‘brainstorming’ meeting inFebruary. The BHESNC states its purpose in organizing is based on the BHNC’s populationof over 80,000, which cannot effectively deal with “historically multiple social problems on avery local basis.” The Letter of Intent was not received within the initial 20-day review periodof the Boyle Heights proposed Neighborhood Council application.

This area and the leadership of the BHESNC were previously a part of the GVBNC. After aGVBNC meeting on February 21, 2002, the leadership of the BHESNC did not feel that theGVBNC was representative of Boyle Heights. It was mentioned that the GVBNC was too

large and could not address the issues within the proposed BHESNC boundaries.

On March 17, 2002 the BHESNC held its first general meeting. Approximately, 30-40 peoplewere present. Those in attendance were presented with the purpose of the BHESNCformation. The leadership of the BHESNC originates from Operation Y.E.S. (YouthEducational Services) Inc, an organization that serves at-risk youth, and families. Theleadership has informed and recruited their program participants, and residents in thecontested area. Since the formation of this group, the leadership is now composed of residents, local business owners, and Operation Y.E.S. On March 27, 2002, a secondgeneral meeting was held by the BHESNC. Approximately 20 people were present. On May9, 2002 the BHESNC held three informational meetings at an all day NC outreach event.

On March 21, 2002, members of the BHESNC attended a BHNC general meeting andpresented their proposal for establishing four neighborhood councils in Boyle Heights. It wasstated at this meeting by leadership of the BHESNC that, “To establish one group is adisservice for the residents of Boyle Heights community, because the flow of revenues willonly come to one group and by forming four groups the flow of revenues will quadruple.” TheBHESNC also stated that other concerned residents and organizations are considering and



of 15

proposing to form other neighborhood councils throughout Boyle Heights in efforts toeffectively serve the entire community.

On April 22, 2002 the department received correspondence from the BHESNC with boundarymodifications. (See attachment.) The new expanded boundaries are, ‘ South of Wabash

Avenue to North of Whittier Blvd., then east of Soto St. west of Indiana St. with an arm goingsouth on Marietta St. starting at Whittier Blvd. connecting to 8 th St., then going east on 8 th St.south side to Marietta the connecting street of our Boyle Heights Eastside NeighborhoodCouncil.” The BHESNC organizing committee approved this proposal with a specific interestin outreaching to the public housing developments in Boyle Heights. The BHESNC submittedan additional 294 signatures with this letter.

On April 30, 2002 the BHNC steering committee met and discussed issues related to theoverlap with the BHESNC. The BHNC expressed an interest in maintaining Boyle Heightswithin one neighborhood council and expressed concern about not knowing whom theBHESNC leadership and participants consisted of. At this meeting, the BHNC committee

voted to meet with the BHESNC to dialogue regarding the overlap.

On May 7, 2002 a boundary dialogue was held with the BHESNC. The BHNC stated that theyfelt strongly about preserving a unified Boyle Heights community, had established four geographic regions within their council to address local representation, and were followinghistorical boundaries that would not continue to fragment the community as other governmentprograms had done. The BHESNC stated that one council for over 80,000 residents was toobig, representation for local areas was a major concern, greater resources and serviceswould be available to multiple councils, and that the groups could work together as acollaborative. The BHESNC mentioned that the BHNC had not conducted block-to-blockoutreach or specific outreach at Estrada Courts. It was mentioned by the BHESNC that ‘one’

neighborhood council could not handle the ‘task’ of servicing the community and that ‘smaller groups’ would be more effective. The BHNC stated that outreach had targeted over 35,000stakeholders, including Estrada Courts. They also affirmed their belief in a unitedneighborhood council as a stronger voice for the Boyle Heights community.

The following three proposals were presented during the dialogue:1) Unify into one Neighborhood Council – BHESNC joins with BHNC and is represented

through the BHNC’s current governance structure as stated in the bylaws.2) Split the area and include Board seats within each NC for the other group.3) Unify into one Neighborhood Council – Amend bylaws of BHNC to increase regional

representation and eliminate at-large representation.

Both groups agreed to the following next steps:• Boyle Heights-Eastside agreed to review the bylaws of the BHNC and prepare

feedback.

• Boyle Heights-Eastside was requested to provide the BHNC with mission statement,and any related materials on the NC for review by the BHNC.



of 15

An agreement was not reached at this meeting, but both groups agreed to meet again onMay 14, 2002.

On May 14, 2002, members from both neighborhood councils met to discuss possibleresolution proposals. A member of the BHESNC presented a proposal to amend the existing

governance structure of the BHNC. The proposal would increase the number of board seatsfrom 29 to 51, with greater resident and geographic representation. The proposal suggestshaving one neighborhood council with the four (4) BHNC geographic areas that would include7 resident seats, 2 community based organization seats, and 2 private sector/specialinterests seats for a total of 44 geographic seats, with 7 seats for the Officers of the Board.The proposal by the BHESNC also suggests having English / Spanish translation, equaldisbursement of funds to each area, and an emphasis on grassroots and mobilizing efforts.

The department informed the groups that this proposal would pre-dispose a 28 residentstakeholder majority on the 51-board membership and is not allowed by the Plan, or the CityCharter. Members from the BHNC expressed concerns with strictly defining the designation

of these 11 geographic seats but were open to expanding the board and the geographicrepresentation. It was conveyed by the BHESNC that the proposal was open torecommended changes to be discussed with the BHNC. Both the BHESNC and the BHNCagreed to unify into one neighborhood council and work on the suggested proposal of theBHESNC amending the BHNC bylaws accordingly. The general membership body at theBHNC general meeting held on Thursday, May 16, 2002 ratified this proposal.

The department recommends that the boundaries as proposed by the Boyle Heights Neighborhood be certified by the BONC. The proposed Boyle Heights- Eastside Neighborhood Council (BHESNC) submitted a letter of intent, but not

within the initial 20-day review period of the BHNC application. The BHESNC has not filed an application and has agreed to unify with the BHNC. The department believes that the interest of the BHESNC can be met through participation in the BHNC and within the governance structure proposed in the bylaws especially with regards to geographic representation.

AREA PROFILE AND NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH

There is no required information missing from this section of the application.

The applicant group indicated the number of resident stakeholders to be represented by the

proposed Neighborhood Council to be between 50,000 and 100,000. The total population is 85,913.

The area described contains approximately 6 square miles. It is located in the easternboundary of the City. It is surrounded by the City of Vernon to the south, the unincorporatedcommunity of East Los Angeles to the east, the communities of Lincoln Heights and ElSereno/Hillside Village to the north and the Los Angeles River and Downtown L.A. to the



of 15

west. It is in the East Community Plan of the City of Los Angeles’ Community PlanningDepartment. City Council District 14 serves the area.

Boyle Heights is a gateway community, with predominantly Latino population, which servesas a port-of-entry for a large number of immigrant groups. There are four major housing

developments in the Boyle Heights area including: Pico Gardens, Aliso Extension, EstradaCourts, and Aliso Village which is currently under redevelopment. An additional publichousing site is Wyverwood, which is privately owned. Well over 2,000 residents reside inpublic housing communities. (See attached maps.) (See attachment.) Boyle Heights is alsoone of the communities being targeted by the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative Project(LANI). It is made up of a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, open space and publicfacility land. The commercial corridors contain a mix of retail, auto shops and smallbusinesses. Most of the commercial activity is strip retail located along portions of Cesar Chavez Ave., First Street and Whittier Blvd.

The area profile provided by the applicant resembles the results of the demographic profile provided by DONE using 2000 Census data (see below). There appear to be no

profile elements omitted that would impact the identification of stakeholders, or the characterization of the area’s diversity.

Below is 2000 US Census information gathered for the BHNC area.

Based on demographic data, the major stakeholder groups are Latinos, renters, and youth under 17 years of age. Small businesses are found among the major corridors of Cesar Chavez Ave, First St., Soto St., Olympic Blvd. and Whittier Blvd.

The BHNC did conduct targeted outreach to Latinos, renters, youth, lower incomehouseholds and businesses.

• Latinos were targeted through the distribution of flyers in English and Spanish.Outreach was also conducted at local churches, and at large events such as theMexican Independence Parade.

POPULATION Total Population: 85,913

Gender Males 49%Females 51 %

HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION Total Households: 20,990

Homeowners 25%Renters 75 %

AGE STRUCTURE 65 & Over 8%50 –64 10%30- 49 26% 18 to 29 22%

17 & under 34%

ETHNICITY Latino 94% Asian Pacific Islander 3%White 2%African American less than 1%Other less than 1%



of 15

• Outreach to renters was conducted through several methods including flyer distributionand through the Boyle Heights Neighbors Organization, and the Boyle HeightsResidents and Homeowners Association.

• Youth were outreached through various organizations such as: Roosevelt HighSchool, the Roosevelt Alumni Association, and the Youth Opportunity Movement of

Boyle Heights.• Households with income under $34,999 were outreached through flyer distribution,

phone calls, and through meetings. Organizations were outreached to such as theBoyle Heights Neighbors Organization, the Mother’s of East L.A., Libraries, and senior citizen clubs. Additionally, the BHNC indicated outreach to Estrada Courts, andWyvernwood, public housing communities.

• Small business outreach has been targeted through the Boyle Heights Chamber of Commerce. It is also indicated on the signatures collected.

The applicant group utilized the following techniques to identify community stakeholders:

• BHNC began with ‘word of mouth’ to friends and neighbors.

• Contacted the following organizations: Boyle Heights Chamber of Commerce, CSO,CHARO, the Boyle Heights Home Owners Association, Libraries, Roosevelt HS, and theCouncilman’s Office.

• Organized and publicized nine (9) public meetings prior to May 30, 2001 to present theNeighborhood Council opportunity.

The applicant group utilized the following techniques to inform community stakeholders of

the Neighborhood Council process:

• Speaking engagements at schools, non-profits, faith based organizations, senior citizengroups, and public safety agencies.

• Mailed a formal appeal to the area churches requesting that they inform their congregations via their bulletins and church announcements. Also requested participationby sending a minimum of 10 persons to represent them at the meetings.

• Set up a Phone Bank database to contact and inform stakeholders about meetings.

• Flyer distribution. Over 10,000 were distributed with a goal to reach over 30,000residents.

• Special Events. Outreach has been conducted at special events such as the MexicanIndependence Parade on September 15, 2001.

• Email. Through the development of the BHNC website (www.caltek.net/bhnc/index.html),

the applicant group has reached a wider spectrum of stakeholders such as businessesand public facilities.

Public Meetings held on the third Thursday of each month. Key leaders have been invited aswell as businesses. The average number of attendees is 20-25. Based on meetingattendance, the applicant group has outreached to key constituencies. Present at themeetings are representatives from Non-Profit organizations, the Chamber of Commerce,business owners, and residents and homeowners. Since the inception of the new City



of 15

Charter, the BHNC began forming and approximately twenty (20) meetings have been heldsince their formation. The leadership of the BHNC has grown more diverse as continuedoutreach has been carried out. Among the leadership are non-profit organizationrepresentatives, residents, business owners, community advocates, and homeowners.

SignaturesThe applicant group submitted 522 signatures indicating support for the proposed BoyleHeights Neighborhood Council.

• Of 522 signatures, 118 were collected from youth at Roosevelt High School,representing 23% of signatures gathered.

• Of 522 signatures, 151 were collected from small businesses and major thoroughfareswith small businesses, representing 29% of signatures gathered.

The applicant group states that to include, inform and educate the widest possible array of stakeholders through the signatures collection process. The following activities took place:

The BHNC states that there were three (3) fundamental methods of outreach:

• Every person on the Steering Committee and several others not on the steeringcommittee conducted outreach.

• Planned speaking engagements specific for the BHNC. Attending community eventsand functions also helped meet and address others that may not have been contacted.

• Over 10,000 flyers were distributed throughout the entire BHNC area informing thecommunity of BHNC meetings.

The applicant group states that continued outreach activities would take place in the

following ways:• A multi-lingual tri-fold BHNC informational piece will be developed and distributed by

mail and through personal contact.

• Continued outreach, production, and marketing through the BHNC multi-lingualwebsite with an emphasis on businesses, public places and residences.

• Ongoing monthly meetings at various locations throughout the BHNC area.

• The BHNC sponsors, attends, and provides information/computer access booths at awide range of community events.

• Develop a printed and virtual newsletter.

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF APPLICANT OUTREACH:

The demographic profile of the bounded area provided by DONE indicate several outstandingprofile elements with regard to major stakeholder groups:

• 75% Renter Population

• 94% Latino residents



of 15

• 34% Youth 17 and under

• 22% Young adults 18 to 29

• 50% of household income is between $15,000 to $34,999

• 41% of household income is less than $15,000

The following major stakeholder groups are involved in the leadership of the BHNC and or participate in the BHNC efforts.

• Renters are represented in the leadership body of the BHNC

• Latino residents are represented in the leadership body of the BHNC• All household income levels are represented in the leadership body of the BHNC

The applicant group has made a good faith and effective effort at incorporating the key stakeholder groups in leadership positions and conducting outreach (including targeted outreach) throughout the proposed boundaries.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

As of the writing of this report, the bylaws for the BHNC are still being adjusted.

The proposed Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council has provided the department with itsorganizational structure in the form of bylaws. The governance structure created by theBHNC establishes a governing body not to exceed 29 members. The 7 Officers will include aPresident, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Public Relations Officer, a City OversightOfficer and a Special Events Officer. Twelve Board members, will represent specificcommunity stakeholder organizations from the following categories: Chamber of Commerce,Organized Labor, Resident Association, Education, Ethics and Aesthetics, Culture, Health,Recreation, Religion, Environment, and Ethnic Resources/Non-Profits. There are ten (10) atlarge Representatives and the twelve (12) Geographical Representative Officers elected fromwithin the four geographical.

The department has reviewed the bylaws of the proposed Boyle Heights Neighborhood withadditional advice from the City Attorney’s Office. In a memo dated May 14, 2002, BHNC wasadvised of several changes that needed to be made to the bylaws to be in compliance with,either the Charter, Ordinance 174006, the Plan for a Citywide System of NeighborhoodCouncils, and/or the requirements of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Thosechanges include the following:



of 15

ARTICLE IISection 5 REQUIREMENT- The NC must change the wording from, “complies with

Federal, State and City Laws”, to, “will comply with Federal, State, and Citylaws.” This is the language required by the Plan. This would be a good placeto add the required ethics language, which could read, “and will comply with all

applicable provisions of the City of Los Angeles Governmental EthicsOrdinance. (LAMC ' 49.5.1)”

ARTICLE IV SUGGESTION – Add, “as defined in Art. II to “has an interest in the recognized

boundaries of the BHNC.”

ARTICLE IXSection C SUGGESTION – These Officers are really not at large, but represent specific

interest categories (at-large). The NC may want to re-word this.

Section F CLARIFICATION – The following wording is confusing, “expiration of their term

mid-term”, What if there is an expiration at any other point?

Section F, 2 REQUIREMENT - The City Attorney Opinion 2002: 5, allows the neighborhood

council to exclude City elected officials from the neighborhood council Board.However, the NC is taking some risk of a legal challenge if you exclude all“stakeholders in political office.” In addition, the term “political office” is vague.Does the NC mean only elected political office or appointed political office? TheNC must specify that the exclusion is to be consistent with the City Attorneyopinion to exclude, “elected City officials” from the Board.

Section H REQUIREMENT – The NC must identify the number of votes on the Board it

would take to take action. The NC can simply make it a, “simple majority of thequorum”, if you would like.

ARTICLE X SUGGESTION - If the NC wants to conduct elections by ballot at its generalmeeting, this can ONLY be done at an election meeting, i.e. only elections canbe conducted at this meeting, the Board cannot meet during this meeting.Otherwise, the NC would have to comply with the Brown Act and not elect bysecret ballot.

ARTICLE XVII REQUIREMENT – The NC must delete the indemnification clause. The

BONC does not have the authority, under certification, to guarantee indemnityand the City Attorney will also advise the BONC to request that this section bedeleted. As a certified NC, the NC is a part of the City family and will be dulyindemnified if operating within the scope of NC business.

ARTICLE XIX REQUIREMENT – The NC must add a statement that bylawamendments must be approved by DONE before they take effect.

ARTICLE XX TYPO – Title Financial Accountability is missing the “y” at the end.



of 15

REQUIREMENT – The NC must provide a process by which the Board reconsiders an

action.

REQUIREMENT – The NC must list a method by which it plans to communicate with

stakeholders on a regular basis.

REQUIREMENT - The NC should clarify the initial election procedures to ensure that theBHNC will be able to elect its first Board.

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The proposed Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council has provided the department with a copyof its accounting procedure. The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment reviewed thissection and has met the criteria set forth by the Plan for a Citywide System of NeighborhoodCouncils.

ETHICS

Neighborhood Councils, upon certification, are required by City regulations to comply with allapplicable provisions of federal, state and local government laws, including the City of LosAngeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance (Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 49.5.1, etseq.). Department staff has requested that the applicant agree and acknowledge to complywith all applicable laws by including such a statement in the bylaws of the applicant.

ATTACHMENT A: PUBLIC NOTICE LOCATION LOGThe applicant submitted five (5) posting locations with their application. The contactinformation provided by the applicant with regard to hours of operation, contact persons, andtypes of stakeholders reachable at the locations, are correct. The locations included in theapplication are spread out throughout the boundaries of the proposed neighborhood council,target different stakeholder groups and are visible and accessible to all communitystakeholders. The following stakeholder groups are targeted: businesses, youth /students,community based organizations / faith based organizations, senior citizens, and ethnicgroups.

ATTACHEMENT B: NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL TREASURER

The proposed Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council has provided the department with adescription of its organizational structure including the offices of its governing body in theform of by-laws. This section has been reviewed by the accounting department of theDepartment of Neighborhood Empowerment and meets the criteria set forth by the Plan for aCitywide System of Neighborhood Councils.



of 15

ATTACHMENT C: CONTACT LAISION ROSTER

The form has been submitted and is an accurate representation of the individuals identifiedby the Project Coordinator as viable members of the organizing groups.

ATTACHMENT D: OPTIONAL STAKEHOLDER COMPOSITION ANDOUTREACH WORKSHEET

The applicant group did not submit the optional stakeholder composition and outreach

worksheet with the application.

DONE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BONC:

1. ADOPT the findings in the staff report and MOVE TO CERTIFY the applicant as theBoyle Heights Neighborhood Council, and

2. APPROVE the boundaries as presented in the final staff boundary determination as:

North: From LA River and Mission Rd. joining Marengo St.

South: 25th St. (City Limit)

East: Indiana St. (City Limit)

West: L.A. River

ADVISE the applicant to amend its bylaws to reflect the boundaries of the neighborhood council as determined by the Commission.

ADVISE the applicant to amend the bylaws consistent with the suggestions of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment with the advice of the City Attorney, and as approved by the Commission.

rmboyle heights nc - final cert review-2

Documents