City of Los Angeles, California, Five-Year Consolidated Plan (Program Years 2008-2013)

This document includes narrative responses to specific questions that grantees of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), Housing Opportunities for

Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) programs must respond to assure compliance with HUD Consolidated Planning Regulations.

Executive Summary

The Executive Summary of the Consolidated Plan (“Plan”) is intended to provide HUD, non-profit and for-profit housing, community and economic development providers, and City residents and businesses with a comprehensive overview of the City’s housing and community development needs, demographics, priorities and strategies, and how the activities will address identified needs and objectives over the next five years. As a result of HUD’s 2006 directives, all Consolidated Plan-funded programs and projects must meet both a HUD-defined objective and outcome, with a corresponding performance indicator to measure results.

BackgroundThe Plan is the result of the 1992 amendment to the National Affordable Housing Act (NAHA) of 1990. This legislation required that a single Consolidated Plan be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for funding of all HUD formula grant programs. These four programs are: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Grant, and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESGP). In 2004, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was passed by Congress and signed by the President as the fifth formula HUD Entitlement grant.

With the receipt of Census 2010 data not anticipated until late 2013, the City of Los Angeles is submitting a full five-year document for the period 2008-2013 using not only Census 2000 and periodic updates, but also HUD State of the Cities Demographic System (SOCDS) data, 2002 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, American Housing Survey and American Community Survey (2005) data from the U.S. Census, California Department of Finance data, and other sources of current demographics. City low- and moderate-income census tract and block group data, used to qualify CDBG-funded projects under the Area Benefit National Objective, was updated in 2007 and will be used where appropriate.

PurposeThe Consolidated Plan’s purposes are threefold: it is intended to provide the groundwork for a comprehensive, integrated approach to planning and implementing the City’s housing, community development, and economic development needs and priorities in the form of a Strategic Plan. It replaced the CHAS, or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, and four separate grant applications. The Consolidated Planning process has allowed the city to effectively coordinate its HUD-funded housing and community development programs and meet its Strategic Plan goals.

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 1

The City also identifies other federal, state, county and private sources of funding in the Consolidated Plan as tools to leverage, or extend the impact, of Consolidated Plan funding. For example, the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program, originating with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and coordinated by the state of California through the City’s Community Action Agency (CAA), funds in part a significant number of Public Service activities, thereby leveraging the impact of CDBG and ESG funding received by the City, particularly for those with extremely low (0-30% of the Los Angeles County Median Income) and very low (31 to 50%) incomes.

The City also leverages Workforce Investment Act funds for employment training and job readiness programs in tandem with CDBG. The New Markets Tax Credit program, administered by the U.S. Treasury provided $75 million in investment credits for Los Angeles developers in 2007, leveraging CDBG funds allocated for economic development in low-income, distressed areas of the City; and HUD Section 108 loan guarantee funds further the City’s economic development strategy by allowing the City additional financial resources to fund catalytic, strategic and cost effective economic development programs.

Because funds are limited and unmet housing needs are great, as HUD CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data demonstrates, the City leverages Consolidated Plan investments in affordable rental housing development and first time homebuyer assistance with other resources available for this purpose. LAHD has successfully applied for over $48 million of competitive grants in the past eight years from both HUD and the State of California.

Local resources for affordable rental housing development include City General Funds, redevelopment tax increment, Section 8 project-based vouchers and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power resources for energy-efficient, sustainable building expenses. In addition, tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond finance, federal and state low-income housing tax credits, conventional bank loans, HUD Supportive Housing, 202 and 811 programs, Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (AHP), and State housing programs funded by voter-approved propositions. On average, Consolidated Plan and local City resources for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund are leveraged with four times as much from other sources.

All Consolidated Plan-funded homebuyer assistance programs are the result of public-private partnerships; approved lenders from local financial institutions offer the 'first mortgage' to be combined with LAHD’s 'second mortgage'. LAHD frequently applies to the State of California and HUD for competitive grants and tax-exempt finance to supplement the Consolidated Plan resources, and also partners with others to ensure the maximum benefits possible for Los Angeles homebuyers.

The Consolidated Plan also serves as the application for the five federal Entitlement programs received by the City annually. HUD requires that the City submit the Plan prior to allocation of federal grant funds to the City. The Plan also allows the City to apply for other grants when the federal government makes them available to local jurisdictions. Both CDD and LAHD prepare Certifications of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan to assure that both City and external agencies applying for other HUD programs (such as those announced in the annual Notice of Funding Availability, or SuperNOFA) are proposing activities consistent with the needs, goals and priorities identified in the City’s Plan.

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 2

The Plan incorporates five major sections: the Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment, Housing Market Analysis, Non-Housing Community Development, Five Year Strategy, and the First Year Action Plan for the period 2008-2009.

Submitted concurrently with the Consolidated Plan is the First-Year Action Plan (“Plan”) for Program Year 2008-2009. The Plan identifies the sources and uses for the City’s allocation of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds, identifies specific outcomes and objectives for use of these funds, and defines performance indicators to measure program and project progress and accomplishments. The First Year Action Plan includes the planned distribution of funds; sources of non-Consolidated Plan funding to accomplish leveraging resources, primarily CDBG funding; and of primary importance, provides key information on the programs and projects to be utilized to meet the Five-Year Plan Strategy.

Consolidated Plan Grant Descriptions

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Consolidated Plan funds are allocated to the City by HUD to meet the housing and community development goals, objectives and strategies set forth in the Consolidated Plan and must primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons. CDBG is the most flexible of the four Consolidated Plan grants, and may be used for a variety of purposes, including affordable housing development and rehabilitation, renovation or construction of neighborhood facilities, economic development, provision of funding to Community-Based Development Organizations (CBDOs) for activities related to employment or economic revitalization; public services, public infrastructure improvements, parks, modification of structures for ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) compliance, establishment of youth and family community centers, crime prevention and awareness programs, programs an facilities for the homeless and those persons with special needs, such as seniors and the disabled; and acquisition of land and improvements for a specific project. All CDBG-funded projects must meet one of three HUD-defined National Objectives.

Primary Objectives for the CDBG program, as defined by HUD, include: Affordable housing for low-income, at-risk homeless, and homeless persons;

increased availability of permanent housing; and mortgage financing at reasonable rates;

A suitable living environment through improvement of safety of our neighborhoods, and increased access to quality facilities and public services; and

Expansion of economic opportunities through job creation, credit for development activities accessible to low-income residents, and technical assistance to businesses.

Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 3

The HOME Program helps to address the shortage of affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities in the City by providing funding to support an array of housing-related activities. A new initiative utilizing HOME funds is the Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP), to enable formerly homeless individuals and families to stabilize and rebuild their lives.

The American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI) funds are used by the City to supplement its Purchase Assistance (PA) and Purchase Assistance with Rehabilitation (PAR) soft second mortgages, enabling more homebuyers to afford the expensive market of Los Angeles. Eligibility for the ADDI Program is the same as eligibility for the current HOME-funded Purchase Assistance program, serving first time homebuyers earning below 80% of area median income.

Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG)ESG funds are used for a wide range of homeless programs. While flexible in terms of serving all homeless subpopulations and preventing persons from becoming homeless, ESG program legislation and implementing regulations limit the types of activities and amounts of funds that can be spent. The five major categories of ESG-eligible activities are: rehabilitation, essential services, operational costs, homeless prevention activities, and administrative costs.

LAHD functions as the grantee for the ESG Program funds, which are passed through via contracts to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), a joint powers authority created in 1993 between the City and County of Los Angeles. LAHSA administers ESG funds received by the City and the County for programs operated by homeless services providers. LAHSA provides oversight, management, monitoring and coordination for ESG program activities. In addition, LAHSA evaluates program effectiveness, conducts strategic planning activities, and ensures geographic coverage of homeless services throughout the City.

Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)HOPWA funds are used to provide a variety of housing and supportive services for persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. The City of Los Angeles, through the Housing Department, is the local coordinating entity for HOPWA funding for the entire Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Neither the County of Los Angeles nor any other city in the County receives a separate allocation of HOPWA funding. Los Angeles County, City of Los Angeles and other local jurisdictions work together with the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) to implement the program.

Differences between the Previous and New Consolidated PlansThere have been significant improvements undertaken by the City in citizen participation

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 4

and accountability for the Consolidated Plan grants since the 2003-2008 cycle. For example, there is now:

Expanded public participation and citizen input – The Neighborhood Council structure brought about by electoral approval of 2000 City Charter amendments and election of new Council Members has brought greater participation and fresh insight into meeting the City’s challenges in housing and community develop-ment.

Greater responsiveness to citizen comments and views - The 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan will continue to reflect a commitment to public participation through expanded consultation with other organizations, citizen groups, City Commissions and local leadership. Several City commissions were consulted to obtain their expert input on priorities for Plan funding priorities in the fall and win-ter of 2007.

Expanded publication by use of Internet Sites/Websites – CDD is now pub-lishing the notices for Citizen’s Unit for Participation (CUP) meetings, community meetings and formal public hearings on the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, the CAPER report, and other HUD-related documents on both its Web Site and the City’s Early Notification System (ENS). CDD is, at this writing, finalizing its mas-ter mailing list in anticipation of creating a City List Serve to provide residents, businesses, related City agencies and the nonprofit community with information and developments pertaining to the Consolidated Planning process year round, including information on the annual application cycle.

A continuing commitment by the City to develop sound and workable ap-proaches to overcome restraints in budgeting CDBG funds for Public Ser-vice activities. Approximately 34% of the CDBG grant is budgeted for public service activities, including activities that have an economic revitalization or em-ployment training component and that qualify under the CDBG Community-Based Development Organization (CBDO) requirements. Due to the inability of many City organizations to meet CBDO requirements, applications for CDBG funding will not be accepted for any new or additional funding under this cate-gory. A major obstacle to meeting underserved needs is the 15% cap, or limita-tion on allocating CDBG funds for public services; this will be discussed later in this report.

A greater emphasis on physical development (infrastructure and commu-nity facilities) and economic development projects, given the limitation on use of CDBG for public service and CBDO activities, the need for capital im-provements in a City with an aging infrastructure, expansion needs of service agencies, and the challenge of creating new industries and jobs with a living wage. Projects of these types will nevertheless need to meet strict eligibility and readiness criteria, including unimpeded site control, project financing commit-ments all in place, absence of legal and financial impediments, and having a real-istic project timeline, among other factors.

A revised process for certification and re-certification of Community-Based Development Organizations (CBDOs) in carrying out public service project ac-

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 5

tivities with a job training and/or economic revitalization component. HUD has re-viewed and approved changes to CDD’s certification process and criteria for des-ignating CBDO activities using CDBG funds, which have been incorporated in CDD’s review procedures.

Oversight and successful meeting of timeliness and reprogramming of CDBG funds from slow-moving projects - The City has improved its capability to track and monitor the usage of federal funds, and track the progress of individ-ual projects. Projects are now identified as slow moving or ready to fund, and in 2007, the City is moving toward adoption of revised expenditure guidelines for the timely use of CDBG funds.

This has increased the level of accountability on the part of City departments for effective use of Consolidated Plan resources. Eight major reprogramming actions have been undertaken since 2000, ensuring effective and efficient use of Consol-idated Plan funds. Monitoring the City’s disbursement ratio is and will remain a top priority for City management.

All five of the City’s Consolidated Plan grants have defined time frames for the timely expenditure of funds. For example, HOME and ADDI funds must be com-mitted to and encumbered for specific activities within two years and expended before five years elapse. Congress, through HUD has established a high priority for timely use of CDBG funds; non-compliance with HUD timeliness standards can result in reduction to the City’s Line of Credit.

Over the last four years, the undisbursed balance of CDBG funds has increased; in 2007, the ratio exceeded 1.60 program years. However, by the end of 2007, the City had reached the CDBG-required expenditure rate through reprogram-ming of funds. Over the next five years, the City will continue an aggressive ap-proach to ensure that CDBG funds are spent expeditiously through regular re-view of undisbursed project balances.

Reinforced accountability and responsibilities of implementing depart-ments – CDD has significantly refined and expanded the use of the Proposed El-igibility Plan (PEP) as an all-purpose document to assure that projects undergo thorough review of HUD eligibility, environmental, and labor standards require-ments and a determination of readiness prior to the release of CDBG funds. PEPs are also used for Substantial Amendments, or changes to approved Con-solidated Plan project activities. The PEP is proving to be a useful tool for re-mote monitoring of projects and to assist in program evaluation. The PEP is now being integrated with the City’s Contract Tracking System to assure that CDBG-funded contracts are not approved until a PEP has been submitted by City lead departments and approved by CDD.

Greater use of CDD staff for departmental and subrecipient training and ca-pacity building - CDD divisions and other City departments will continue to pro-vide annual in-depth training to City and agency staff in preparation of the Plan and the CAPER. Training has over the last two years been expanded to include grant recordkeeping and HUD requirements for sub-recipient management, as well as in preparation of the PEP. As part of the annual Consolidated Plan appli-cation cycle, CDD staff provides training to applicants on use of the CPAS (Con-

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 6

solidated Plan Application System), an on-line system that permits preparation and submission of funding requests.

A commitment to diversification of funding - To assure continuation of key City services, City departments and community-based organizations will be strongly encouraged to explore ways to build their organizational capacity, and learn how to identify and utilize existing and alternative sources of funding in new and better ways. The Mayor approved reorganization of the CDD to include a Re-source Development Unit (RDU) in 2006 which is actively identifying and apply-ing for additional federal and state grants to leverage Consolidated Plan funding. CDD has also established a Capacity Building program for training of agencies in resource development and grants management.

Re-evaluation of the City’s Gang Prevention and Intervention programs and the Human Services Delivery System. The City Controller in 2007 issued an audit of two of the City’s critical public service systems, with specific recommen-dations to make the programs more effective. The overarching objective, how-ever, was to determine the best service model given the use of CDBG to finance projects, and the fiscal and regulatory constraints the City must adhere to. Over the next five years, the City will be assessing and restructuring the LA Bridges program, funded in large part by CDBG funds; and the Neighborhood Action Pro-gram/Family Development Network structure of the Human Services Delivery System, funded through the CDBG and CSBG grants. The City’s overall gang prevention and intervention efforts will be re-evaluated by the new Ad Hoc Com-mittee on Gangs.

Consolidated Plan Priorities and Strategies The Mayor, in his October 1, 2007 Consolidated Plan memorandum, identified three core priorities for the targeting and expenditure of Action Plan resources; each is described below. Because of the vast extent of need in Los Angeles, all priorities are considered of equal rank:

Priority One: Youth Development and Education – over one-third of the population of the City of Los Angeles is under the age of 18, one of the largest percentages of young people in a major American city. The future health and vitality of Los Angeles is directly tied to the education and development of our youth. Priority will be given to those programs that foster opportunities for increased youth development, create the conditions to raise student achievement, or promote safe and violence-free informal learning environments to protect and enrich our children’s lives. Please see discussion of the One Out of Five Report in the anti-poverty section of this document.

Priority Two: Job Creation and Securing Our Economic Future – new opportunities for economic success and stability for families throughout the City must be generated and sustained. Priority will be given to those programs that attract new companies to Los Angeles, assist local and emerging businesses grow, or retain and create well-paying jobs.

Priority Three: Affordable and Workforce Housing – with the continuing increase in housing costs, housing that is affordable and safe must be created and maintained. Priority will be given to those programs that assist Los Angeles’s

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 7

workforce in finding affordable rental and homeownership opportunities that promote the development of housing near areas of job creation, and that maintain the City’s current affordable housing units.

While the City will continue to refine its priorities and strategies to reflect changing community development needs over the next five years, the commitment remains first and foremost to direct Plan resources to persons of low- and moderate-income.

HUD-Mandated Outcome Performance Measurement SystemIn 2006, HUD implemented a Performance Measurement System for grantees nationwide. Performance measurement is now a requirement for virtually all federal programs, and performance in the form of defined and measurable objectives and outcomes is now front and center a key consideration in program funding decisions; grantees (and HUD) must demonstrate program results to decision makers and the public. This requirement stems from the recommendations arising from the Government Accountability Performance Review (PART) and OMB’s PART (Program Assessment Review Team) findings which identified significant shortcomings in grantees’ ability to demonstrate the results of federally-assisted programs.

Performance measurement enables HUD and the City to capture program accomplishments, enhance program capacity and results, and build public confidence and support in programs. HUD will use the data provided by the City to summarize “program outcomes” nationally, combine the City’s data with other data to track national trends, prepare national reports on program performance and use data to respond to Congressional and other inquiries about Consolidated Plan programs. The City is now mandated to classify Consolidated Plan-funded activities using HUD’s framework and report outcome data to HUD through the Department’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) annually.

As a result, all activities proposed for funding through the City’s Annual Action Plan, with the exception of administration and planning activities, must meet one of three Objectives: 1) Creating Suitable Living Environments; 2) Providing Decent Affordable Housing; and 3) Creating Economic Opportunities, all of which parallel HUD’s original Primary Objective for the CDBG program. All activities must also meet one of three Outcomes: 1) Availability/Accessibility; 2) Affordability; and 3) Sustainability. Each activity must be described in terms of an Outcome Statement, composed of both the defined Objective and Outcome. In addition, indicators must be connected to the Outcome Statement.

The City will provide all needed Performance Data in its Annual Action Plans over the next five years, and report in its annual CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports) and Grantee Performance Report (GPR). A summary of the City’s outcomes, objectives, performance indicators and quantifiable goals for each funded Consolidated Plan activity for the First Year (PY 2008-2009) Action Plan is found in the section “Activities to be Undertaken” of this document, as is the Priority Needs Assessment.

Many housing-related programs can be assigned more than one objective and outcome, since they serve multiple purposes, based on the definitions provided by HUD. Therefore, as HUD has recommended, LAHD has chosen the objectives and outcomes that most closely match the intent of each program. The objective of Providing Decent

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 8

Housing applies to nearly all housing programs operated by the City. Improving Affordability is the designated outcome of the rental housing production, homebuyer assistance and HOPWA Rental Assistance programs; however, the performance indicator for each program varies. For rental housing development the indicator is the number of new rental housing units provided financing commitments in a Program Year; for homebuyer and HOPWA Rental Assistance the indicator is the number of households assisted, since new housing units are not created by those programs.

LAHD’s rehabilitation program outcomes are Improving Availability or Accessibility, with the performance indicators of number of units rehabilitated or units assisted, depending on the amount of work performed. For example, since the Handyworker and Home Secure programs provide important, but minimal assistance, which cannot be categorized as true rehabilitation, the ‘units assisted’ indicator is used.

The programs administered by LAHSA to assist homeless persons and prevent homelessness serve the objective of Creating a Suitable Living Environment and the expected outcome is Improving Availability or Accessibility. The performance indicator is the number of persons assisted.

General Questions

1. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low-income families and/or racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed.

Los Angeles is a geographically large, racially and ethnically diverse and complex metropolitan area of over 457 square miles, extending from the Los Angeles Harbor to the West San Fernando Valley (a distance of 44 miles); the community of Venice on the Pacific Ocean and east to unincorporated Los Angeles County and the San Gabriel Valley cities. Over 88 other cities and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County are found adjacent to, or within the City.

The City has 36 established Community Plan Areas (CPA) throughout the City, which will be used as the primary geographic tool of analysis throughout the Consolidated Plan and First Year Action Plan.

Of 2,182,114 U.S.-born City residents, 1,485,576 were born in California, 663,746 were born in a different state

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 9

Historical populations

Census Pop.  %±

1850 1,610 —

1860 4,385 172.4%

1870 5,728 30.6%

1880 11,183 95.2%

1890 50,395 350.6%

1900 102,479 103.4%

1910 319,198 211.5%

1920 576,673 80.7%

1930 1,238,048 114.7%

1940 1,504,277 21.5%

1950 1,970,358 31.0%

1960 2,479,015 25.8%

1970 2,816,061 13.6%

1980 2,966,850 5.4%

1990 3,485,398 17.5%

2000 3,694,820 6.0%

Est. 2006 3,849,378 4.2%

of the United States, and 61,792 were born in a United States territory according to the 2000 Census.

Of the 1,512,720 foreign-born, 100,252 were born in Europe, 376,767 were born in Asia, 64,730 were born in Africa, 94,104 were born in the Caribbean or Oceania. 996,996 were born in Latin America, and 13,859 were born in Canada. Of the foreign-born, 569,771 entered between 1990 to March 2000. 509,841 are naturalized citizens and 1,002,879 are not citizens.

By the next national census in 2010, Los Angeles is expected to have a Latino majority for the first time since 1850. The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is the number one point of entry for immigrants in the country. The Latino, Asian American, and Caribbean populations are growing particularly quickly — the Asian-American population is the largest of any U.S. city. Los Angeles hosts large populations of Cambodians, Iranians, Armenians, Belizeans, Bulgarians, Ethiopians, Filipinos, Guatemalans, Hungarians, Koreans, Israelis, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Thais, and Pacific Islanders such as Samoans.

Los Angeles is also home to the largest population of Japanese Americans living in the United States, and has one of the largest Native American populations in the country. The metropolitan area also is home to the second largest concentration of people of Jewish descent (estimated at 621,000) in the Americas, after New York City. Los Angeles also has the second largest Nicaraguan community in the United States after Miami. It also hosts a sizable South Asian community. Los Angeles is home to people from more than 140 countries speaking 224 different languages. Ethnic enclaves, including Chinatown, Historic Filipino Town, Koreatown, Little Armenia, Little Ethiopia, Little Persia, Little India, Little Tokyo, and Thai Town provide examples of the polyglot character of Los Angeles.

Mentioned earlier, the U.S. Census of 2000 revealed significant racial demographic shifts in the City. Latinos, the largest single ethnic group, comprised 46.5% of the City’s population of any race, and live throughout the City. Whites made up 46.9%; African-Americans comprise 11.2% of the City’s population and Asians 10%, while Native Americans make up less than 1% (0.8%).

There has been a significant degree of out-migration from the City by Non-Hispanic-Whites, and a substantial influx of Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders into Los Angeles over the last ten years, while the number of African-Americans has decreased significantly. According to the 2000 Census, Latinos of Mexican heritage formed the largest ethnic group in Los Angeles, numbering 1,091,686 or 29.5% of the total Latino population. African-Americans, at 415,195 were, according to the 2000 Census, the second largest minority in Los Angeles. The number of African-Americans declined from 488,000 in the 1990 Census, or a decrease of 15%, a substantial shift.

Ethnic and racial distributions within the City's 36 Community Plan Areas (CPAs) were examined to determine the degree to which members of the City's racial and ethnic groups are concentrated in geographical areas. The narrative and tables that follow show the population of CPAs where the concentration of each ethnic group is at least 10% higher than the Citywide average for that group.

African-Americans

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 10

The City's African-American population is concentrated in only four CPAs: Southeast, West Adams, South Central City, and Central City. In fact, 72% of the City's entire African- American population lives in these four areas, within and south of the City's central core. African-Americans comprised about 11% of the City’s population in 2000.

Table 1 - African-American Population Higher than 20% of Citywide AverageCommunity Plan Area % African-American (2000/1990 Census)West Adams 52% (62%)South Los Angeles 38% (48%)Southeast 25% (40%)Central City 23% (21%)

Both the number and proportion of the City's African-American population has declined dramatically over the last decade. In 1980, the City had 504,674 African-American residents constituting 17% of the City’s population. By 1990, the number had decreased to 454,289, or approximately 13% of the population.

The 2000 Census revealed that the number of African-Americans had declined to 415,195, or about 11% of the City’s population. The population of African-Americans dropped below 20% in Central City North in the 2000 Census (23% v. 18%), which was formerly included as an area of concentration. Several reasons have been suggested for this phenomenon, one of the most common being that African-Americans have found more affordable housing and employment opportunities outside of the City.LatinosThe composition of California’s Latino population differs from that of the rest of the United States, weighted more heavily by people of Mexican and Central American origin, and with larger numbers of immigrants. The Latino population is substantially younger than the non-Latino population, with over a third of Latinos under the age of 18, and less than 1 in 25 over the age of 65. The households of Latinos are larger than those of non-Latinos, due both to larger families and inclusion of other relatives in the household, and the inability of many Latinos to find or afford large family housing.

According to the 2000 Census, the City's Latino population, 46.5% of all residents, was larger than any other group. Fifty percent of all Latinos live in nine community planning areas. Many areas that were once considered African-American communities now have substantial Latino populations. For example, 58.6% of the population of Southeast Los Angeles and 44.7% of the population of South Central Los Angeles is Latino, whereas the 1990 Census revealed the reverse. The Valley reflects an important aspect to population growth in Southern California, namely the dramatic change in ethnic composition, particularly Latinos in the period between the two decennial censuses. The 2000 Census revealed that Hispanics accounted for 36.5% of the Valley’s total population (1990 Latino census results here).

Table 2 - Latino Population Higher than 10% of Citywide AverageCommunity Plan Area % Latino

Boyle Heights 94%Westlake 79%

Arleta-Pacoima 75%Northeast 64%

Wilmington 62%

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 11

Table 2 - Latino Population Higher than 10% of Citywide AverageSoutheast 59%Sun Valley 55%

Sylmar 52%Silverlake 51%

Native AmericansLos Angeles has by far the largest urban Native American community in the nation, represented by over 200 different tribes and Alaskan native groups. However, the 2000 Census counted only 29,412 persons, or 0.79% of the City’s population as Native American. If Native Americans of Central and South American origin were included, the total would be about 43% higher, based on proportions reported in the 1990 Census. Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific IslandersBetween 1990 and 2000, the City's Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders’ population increased from 7% to 10% of the City’s population. Five Community Planning Areas have concentrations of Asians that exceed 150% of their representation Citywide. A total of 40.3% of the City’s Asian population is found in these areas.

The largest groups among those of Asian heritage, according to the 2000 Census, are Filipino (101,062), Korean (91,595), Chinese (63,075), and Japanese (36,992). Both the Chinese and Japanese Asian subgroups registered declines since the 1990 Census.

The Central City North area is the site of Chinatown. The residential population of this community planning area is now very small, as only 2% of all Asians in the City live in this area.

The census tract within which Chinatown is located is 72% Chinese - the greatest concentration of Chinese in any census tract in Southern California. By contrast, the Wilshire area, which is the site of Koreatown, represents 18% of the City's Asian population. Thai populations are heavily represented in the East Hollywood area.

The second largest ethnic group in the San Fernando Valley is Asian/Pacific Islanders with a 12.3 percent share of the total, according to the 2000 Census.

Table 3 - Asian/Pacific Islander Population Higher than 10% of Citywide AverageCommunity Plan Area % Asian/Pacific Islander

Central City North 33%Silverlake 27%Wilshire 21%

Harbor Gateway 19%Northeast 16%

Whites The number and proportion of Whites in the City has declined over the past two decades, but is still the second largest group in the City according to the 2000 Census. There are 10 Community Planning Areas in which Whites make up 60% or more of the population. However, this proportion of Whites within the City is projected to decline even further, which will be demonstrated by the 2010 Census.

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 12

Forty-five (45%) of the City's White population live in 10 CPAs, according to the 2000 Census:

Table 4 White Population Higher than 10% of Citywide AverageCommunity Plan Area % Whites

Brentwood 89%Bel Air 88%Sherman Oaks 87%Encino/Tarzana 86%Westwood 76%Westchester 72%Chatsworth 72%Canoga Park 71%Sunland/Tujunga 70%Northridge 69%

PovertyIt’s critical that the City examine not only the concentrations of poverty within the City, but also examine those variables that bear a close relationship statistically. This will be treated in greater detail in this section. The 2000 Census revealed that over 22% of the City’s population met Federal guidelines for poverty. American Community Survey data released in 2006 revealed only a slight decline in the City’s poverty rate, to about 20%.

Poverty rates - and the populations affected by poverty - vary significantly among the 36 Community Planning Areas within the City. The chart below provides information on those CPAs in which there is a poverty rate of 20% or greater as of the 2000 Census:

Table 5 Poverty Rates in City Community Plan Areas

Community Total Population for Whom Poverty Status is Determined

Percent Percent of Age Group Most Affected

Chinatown 5,185 61.19% 12-17, 78.45%Watts 16,123 47.66% Under 5, 60.92%Pico-Union 19,672 44.24% Under 5, 58.28%Central City 9,447 41.00% 12-17, 47.60%Southeast Los Angeles

40,174 38.82% Under 5, 48.61%

Central City East 2,675 36.04% 6-11, 51.79%Koreatown 13,561 35.89% Under 5, 47.55%South Los Angeles 133,680 35.75% Under 5, 47.04%Westlake 30,501 35.30% 6-11, 51.39%

Lincoln Heights 11,400 34.09% 6-11, 47.15%Crenshaw 29,494 32.54% Under 5, 46.67%Boyle Heights 28,140 32.49% Under 5, 42.87%Wilmington 14,062 27.05% 6-11, 39.83%Hollywood 43,477 26.21% 6-11, 41.34%Silver Lake 10,166 23.18% 12-17, 36.95%Westwood 8,399 22.95% 18-64, 28.40%Elysian Park 2,885 22.33% 12-17, 45.81%Harbor City 6,335 21.93% 6-11, 30.44%West Adams 4,481 21.71% Under 5, 31.86%El Sereno 9,716 21.55% 12-17, 31.38%

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 13

North Hollywood 32,289 21.31% 12-17, 30.27%Arleta-Pacoima 18,950 20.21% Under 5, 26.94%

What is striking from this data is the disproportionate share of poverty borne by children and youth. Nine CPAs were found to have a percentage of age group most affected by poverty as those five and under, and five CPAs in the age group 6-11.

Poverty rates also vary by location and by race. For example, Table 6 presents poverty data for the five most populated cities in Southern California (Source: Census 2000 SF3)

Table 6: Poverty Rates by Race for the Five Largest Southern California CitiesAnaheim Long Beach Los Angeles San Diego Santa Ana

White, not Latino

6.6 9.7 10.1 8.0 8.6

Asian/Pacific Islander

9.4 27.2 17.0 13.2 12.6

Two or More Races

15.7 25.3 24.5 17.8 18.0

Native American

17.1 27.8 27.0 19.2 25.6

Black 14.4 30.1 28.0 20.5 16.9Latino 21.3 30.7 29.6 26.1 22.6Other 22.2 32.5 31.0 29.1 23.0

In four of five of the largest Southern California cities, the highest rate of poverty is identified in the “other” category, which the U.S. Census defines as individuals who identified with a group not listed on the census survey.

To better understand the nature and extent of need and the causes of poverty in Los Angeles, in 2005 the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the Department of City Planning, undertook the E-Scan project (Environmental Scan) which examined the characteristics that most demonstrated need within the 36 City-designated Community Plan Areas and how prevalent these factors were throughout the City. A number of factors were analyzed, and CPAs were ranked according to 2000 Census data pertaining to the specific aspect of need. Among the factors examined included:

Percent of persons without a high school diploma or GED, age 25 or older Percent youth in poverty Single parent families Percent of overcrowding of housing units Linguistically isolated persons age 5 or older Housing Density and Overcrowding

The analysis revealed several significant associations between CPAs and the variables studied:

The Boyle Heights CPA of East Los Angeles had the highest percent of persons over 25 without a high school diploma or GED (69%);

The Southeast Los Angeles CPA had the highest percent of youth in poverty (19.5%) compared to a City Wide average of 8.1%;

The Southeast Los Angeles CPA also had the largest number of single parent families as a percent of total families (34.4%), compared to a City Wide average of 20.8%;

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 14

The Westlake CPA experienced the highest percentage of severe housing overcrowding, or housing units with 1.51% or more persons per habitable room (49%) v. a City Wide average of 21.5%;

Westlake also ranked first in population density (33,708 per square mile v. a City Wide average of 7,607) and in the number of total housing units that are renter occupied (95% v. a City Wide average of 61.4%);

The Central City CPA was ranked an extreme first in net acreage dwelling unit density (219) versus a City Wide average of 10;

The North and East Central CPAs ranked first in the number of linguistically isolated persons age 5 or older (54.9%) v. a City Wide average of 18.2%

The number of persons per household in the San Fernando Valley ranges from 1.93 in Studio City to 4.54 in Pacoima. In general, the northeast Valley tends to have larger households, while the southwest Valley is in the lower range.

What can be concluded is that effective use of Consolidated Plan funds for non-housing purposes should take into consideration the extreme extent of need in several City communities within Los Angeles: Southeast, Boyle Heights, Westlake, the Central, North, and East Central City areas. Given that 21% of all City households are severely overcrowded, housing affordability is a problem that must be addressed throughout the City.

Analysis of Poverty VariablesIn October of 2007, CDD staff coordinated with the Demographic Research Unit staff of the Department of City Planning to further interpret the results of the E-Scan study by using statistical tools to measure the correlation strength among the poverty variables studied.

This data is submitted as the City’s foundation for the services justification for the non-housing community development section of the Plan.

The initial determinants used were: percent renters, population density, and housing per net land area. The net area calculation takes out non-residential land uses, large open spaces, and streets.

Table 7 provides data on the factors studied. The data in bold describes the extreme case for each variable.

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 15

TABLE 7

CPA

2000 Pop. (Adj. for

Undercount)

1990 Pop.

Pop. Growth, 1990-2000

Population, Percent Change

Overall Poverty

Rate

Percent Youth

in Poverty

Persons Per

Family

No HS Diploma

or Equivalent Age 25 or

Older - Count

% of Total

Families - Single Parent Female Headed

Single Parent

w/ Children Under

18 as % of Total Families

% Unemp

Percent Households Receiving

Public Assist.

Percent Overcrowding 1.51 persons per habitable

room

Population Density - Persons

per square mile

Percent Housing

Units Renter

Occupied

Net Residential

Acreage

Net Acreage Dwelling

Unit Density - Units

per Square

Mile

Linguistically Isolated Persons (Age 5 or Older) %

Total Population Under 21 Years of

Age

Arleta-Pacoima 98,072 89,252 8,820 9% 20% 8% 4.68 32,175 26% 21% 10% 9% 41% 8,237 38% 0.35 8 21% 39,388Bel Air 20,254 19,537 717 4% 5% 3% 2.82 678 11% 6% 4% 1% 1% 1,314 12% 0.58 2 2% 4,136Boyle Heights 86,735 89,584 -2,849 -3% 33% 26% 4.36 31,816 27% 26% 13% 15% 40% 12,997 75% 0.26 21 37% 33,955Brentwood 55,215 54,532 683 1% 5% 2% 2.81 1,319 13% 7% 4% 1% 2% 1,451 36% 0.26 4 2% 10,927Canoga Park 166,259 149,697 16,562 10% 11% 13% 3.27 20,166 18% 14% 6% 3% 19% 5,885 40% 0.53 6 10% 46,479Central City 25,208 20,966 4,242 17% 44% 11% 2.96 8,121 27% 14% 30% 16% 13% 8,339 93% 0.03 219 31% 3,740Chatsworth 84,734 79,825 4,909 6% 8% 9% 3.23 8,455 19% 13% 5% 3% 14% 3,298 0% 0.37 5 8% 23,614Encino-Tarzana 70,227 66,969 3,258 5% 10% 2% 2.92 5,359 18% 10% 5% 2% 8% 3,423 39% 0.50 5 9% 15,429

Granada Hills 57,255 53,609 3,646 6% 8% 2% 3.31 5,270 17% 12% 5% 2% 9% 3,169 28% 0.34 5 7% 16,168Harbor Gateway 39,976 36,010 3,966 10% 21% 22% 3.83 8,948 26% 23% 10% 9% 32% 7,982 59% 0.31 12 21% 14,667

Hollywood 210,824 213,905 -3,081 -1% 23% 7% 3.19 39,887 25% 18% 10% 6% 22% 8,369 80% 0.42 15 22% 45,792Mission Hills 134,960 109,592 25,368 19% 22% 24% 3.98 32,732 22% 21% 9% 7% 40% 11,547 52% 0.51 10 26% 50,888N. and E. Central 24,071 22,479 1,592 7% 32% 20% 3.55 9,016 24% 16% 11% 13% 9,367 90% 0.06 49 55% 4,631

North Hollywood 135,882 122,376 13,506 10% 21% 8% 3.47 28,146 25% 21% 9% 6% 22% 12,776 71% 0.50 15 18% 40,555

Northeast L.A. 241,403 237,269 4,134 2% 21% 22% 3.85 63,857 26% 22% 9% 9% 29% 9,971 56% 0.47 10 22% 82,945Northridge 62,680 58,705 3,975 6% 14% 15% 3.24 6,600 19% 13% 11% 3% 16% 6,191 43% 0.58 6 10% 18,014Palms 110,044 103,508 6,536 6% 16% 14% 3.06 13,623 24% 15% 6% 3% 12% 12,207 70% 0.47 18 12% 24,280Port of L.A. 1,949 1,859 90 5% 23% 4% 3.14 517 27% 36% 9% 3% 298 59% 0.00 54 6% 258Reseda 98,965 89,930 9,035 9% 14% 17% 3.53 18,191 21% 30% 8% 4% 22% 8,195 45% 0.50 9 15% 30,250San Pedro 76,028 74,220 1,808 2% 17% 21% 3.22 11,976 30% 39% 7% 6% 14% 6,668 57% 0.28 15 10% 22,777Sherman Oaks 72,988 69,560 3,428 5% 7% 4% 2.68 3,169 22% 29% 7% 1% 20% 5,372 56% 0.60 8 4% 11,522Silverlake 76,988 81,088 -4,100 -5% 23% 21% 3.61 18,895 26% 36% 10% 8% 28% 10,611 68% 0.42 15 21% 21,593South L.A. 260,095 257,559 2,536 1% 34% 27% 3.92 71,455 39% 34% 15% 14% 29% 16,883 67% 0.52 16 19% 101,699Southeast L.A. 254,976 239,980 14,996 6% 41% 32% 4.56 81,355 34% 34% 16% 20% 41% 16,216 68% 0.41 16 26% 114,450Sun Valley 86,391 76,900 9,491 11% 19% 21% 4.12 23,264 19% 18% 11% 7% 39% 4,300 42% 0.28 6 21% 31,152Sunland-Tujunga 58,228 54,480 3,748 6% 12% 12% 3.41 8,668 19% 16% 7% 5% 15% 2,655 36% 0.35 4 8% 17,606

Sylmar 69,624 59,643 9,981 14% 13% 16% 4.08 16,005 19% 18% 8% 4% 27% 5,423 29% 0.40 6 14% 26,242Van Nuys 158,692 136,267 22,425 14% 21% 8% 3.45 33,042 25% 21% 8% 6% 28% 12,313 68% 0.51 14 20% 49,482Venice 37,758 40,040 -2,282 -6% 12% 7% 2.87 3,906 28% 16% 7% 3% 7% 11,753 69% 0.45 22 5% 5,984West Adams 172,913 169,395 3,518 2% 26% 24% 3.47 35,912 43% 33% 12% 11% 19% 12,705 64% 0.51 15 12% 58,403

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 16

TABLE 7

CPA

2000 Pop. (Adj. for

Undercount)

1990 Pop.

Pop. Growth, 1990-2000

Population, Percent Change

Overall Poverty

Rate

Percent Youth

in Poverty

Persons Per

Family

No HS Diploma

or Equivalent Age 25 or

Older - Count

% of Total

Families - Single Parent Female Headed

Single Parent

w/ Children Under

18 as % of Total Families

% Unemp

Percent Households Receiving

Public Assist.

Percent Overcrowding 1.51 persons per habitable

room

Population Density - Persons

per square mile

Percent Housing

Units Renter

Occupied

Net Residential

Acreage

Net Acreage Dwelling

Unit Density - Units

per Square

Mile

Linguistically Isolated Persons (Age 5 or Older) %

Total Population Under 21 Years of

Age

West Los Angeles 71,944 67,832 4,112 6% 12% 7% 2.83 5,296 18% 10% 5% 2% 7% 10,192 62% 0.47 17 9% 12,572

Westchester 51,255 48,003 3,252 6% 9% 8% 2.89 2,732 25% 15% 7% 2% 6% 3,723 49% 0.26 10 3% 12,553Westlake 106,710 107,062 -352 0% 40% 28% 3.73 37,700 30% 28% 12% 12% 49% 33,708 95% 0.33 53 50% 37,252Westwood 48,201 41,841 6,360 13% 32% 6% 2.62 1,371 16% 6% 9% 1% 8% 12,943 64% 0.41 20 7% 13,295Wilmington 75,215 70,204 5,011 7% 24% 24% 3.96 20,447 25% 4% 10% 9% 39% 6,595 59% 0.21 15 23% 29,204Wilshire 292,101 271,721 20,380 7% 25% 8% 3.32 60,120 26% 20% 9% 6% 29% 20,904 83% 0.53 25 30% 77,309

2008-2013 Five-Year Action Plan 17

City of Los Angeles, California

The September 2007 Brookings Institution study New Housing, Income Inequality, and Distressed Metropolitan Areas found that the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Area had the largest increase in family income inequality in the period 1970-2000. The ratio of income inequality in 1970 was 2.83 and in 2000 had grown to 4.44, or a change in the ratio of 1.44. Income inequality is measured by the ratio of income of a typical high-income family (80th percentile of family income) to that of a typical low-income family (20th percentile of family income). Income inequality within a metropolitan area is an important indicator of how poverty changes the residential location decision of rich and poor families in ways that cause neighborhoods to become more segregated by income.

2. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a) (1)) and the basis for assigning the priority (including the relative priority, where required) given to each category of priority needs (91.215(a) (2)). Where appropriate, the jurisdiction should estimate the percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target areas.

The City has not formally identified target areas for allocation of Plan funds, nor has a system yet been adopted by the City for allocation of funding geographically within the City based upon priority needs. There has been some discussion of establishment of Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas (NRSAs), which may result in their establishment within the timeframe of the ensuing Plan. With the recommendation of the City Controller in its recent audit of the Family Development Network (FDN) system, the Human Services and Family Development Division (HSFD) of CDD is now planning to conduct a City Wide public services needs assessment in connection with restructuring of CDD’s Human Services Delivery System. This may result in recommendations for developing a methodology for formally targeting Plan resources.

The June 2007, release of the Community Poverty Strategy (covered in detail in the Anti-Poverty Strategy section of this document) should prove to be a useful starting point for identifying needs and assisting in re-evaluation of the City’s anti-poverty strategies.

Several City departments and CDD divisions do, however, already have a mandate to target needs geographically and by the extent of poverty (such as the CSBG grant), or by virtue of a federal or state-designated zone, such as the City’s Renewal Community (RC) or the state of California Enterprise Zone geographic designations. The City’s major public service programs, including the Human Services Delivery System, are by their nature City Wide, but are located in areas characterized by high rates of poverty and other indicators of distress.

As a further example, the Economic Development Division (EDD) of CDD serves the entire City; however, its products and service delivery are focused in low- and moderate-income areas. Typically, service delivery sites, such as the Los Angeles Business Assistance Program (LABAP), are located in areas where poverty rates are at least 20% or higher. EDD’s economic development products, such as Empowerment Zone (EZ) bonds, are made available in designated business incentive zones. The basis for allocating CDBG funds is driven by areas with a higher concentration of poverty. The goal is to stimulate local economies that are depressed and to bring essential goods and services that are not available to economically depressed communities because of long-term disinvestment in those areas.

2008-2013 Five-Year Consolidated Plan18

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCSBG funds are allocated by CDD to City CIPAs (Community Improvement Planning Areas) on the basis of its poverty rate; and are targeted to extremely low-income persons, or those with 30% or less of the Los Angeles County Median Family Income. CSBG funds are blended with CDBG funds for the Human Services Delivery System program, and the distribution of these funds influences the selection of contractors for the HSDS Request for Proposals (RFP).

2. Housing Assistance – Geographic Allocations for CDBG, HOME, ADDI and ESG

In principle, all of LAHD’s housing programs operate citywide, assisting lower income households thoughout the City of Los Angeles. In practice, because of the high land and home prices in Los Angeles, much of the funds for both rental housing construction and homebuyer assistance are spent in neighborhoods with lower land costs. In the 1990s, target areas were used for some programs, but were discontinued for a variety of reasons.

As mentioned above, 21% of all City households are severely overcrowded. Overpayment for housing by low-income residents is not limited to certain neighborhoods. Particularly with homebuyer assistance efforts, experience has shown that market opportunities can arise throughout the City. For example, enterprising low-and-moderate income first-time homebuyers may find ‘fixer-uppers’, homes in probate, or other bargains in a variety of neighborhoods. Given the current market situation, foreclosure opportunities are likely as well and LAHD needs to be able to assist the buyers wherever the opportunities arise.

Similarly with LAHD’s Housing Rehabilitation Programs, many low-income long-term homeowners and small rental property owners have ‘aged in place’ and live throughout the City. In order to continue living independently, they are in need of the favorable loan terms that LAHD can provide as well as the protection such loans give against predatory lenders who look for low-income, high-equity owners.

For project activities funded through the CDBG National Objective of Low and Moderate Income Housing, assistance is provided to households, and is not tied to area income. CDBG funds qualified under this National Objective may be spent in any census tract within the City, but only for households that are low- and moderate-income.

Because the City of Los Angeles has many residents with a variety of serious unmet housing needs, as CHAS data demonstrates, we choose to fund several different types of programs to address those needs. The City has to balance a desire to serve as many households as possible with the fact that deep subsidies are required for affordable rental housing development and homebuyer assistance. It is a high priority for the City to help low income elderly homeowners to continue living independently in their homes, as well as to enable young families to achieve the American dream of homeownership. The annual budget allocations represent that balance.

Allocation of Investment – Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)LAHD is also responsible for the administration of the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. In contrast to the use of other Consolidated Plan re-sources, which are limited to the City of Los Angeles, HOPWA funds serve all of Los An-geles County, otherwise known as the Los Angeles-Long Beach EMSA (Eligible Metropoli-tan Statistical Area). Therefore, the HOPWA program funds are not limited to specific geo-graphic areas.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 19 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaThere are three general priorities for the use of HOPWA funds:

Rental Assistance: Shallow Subsidies and Long Term Rental Assistance. Development of housing for persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH/A),

including emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing. Supportive Services such as housing placement assistance, case

management, substance abuse services, and mental health services.

Priority was given to these programs based on the results of surveys in 1999 and 2002, and recommendations of the 2003 Strategic Plan for Providing HIV/AIDS Housing With Supportive Services in Los Angeles County, developed by Shelter Partnership for LAHD and LACHAC.

These represent the greatest needs of PLWH/A respondents in Los Angeles County.

Spotlight on Demographics, Indicators of Need and Priorities, San Fernando ValleyThis section on determining priorities and geographical distribution of need cannot be complete without an analysis of demographic characteristics of the San Fernando Valley, the fastest growing area of the city of Los Angeles, with a population of approximately 1.4 million. In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the American Community Survey for the newly created San Fernando Valley Sub-County Census District (CCD). The Information that follows is provided courtesy of the California State University 2006/2007 San Fernando Valley Economic Report.

One of the barriers to Consolidated Plan funding for San Fernando Valley projects has been the relatively few low-income and poverty census tracts, compared to areas with a far greater number; however, this situation is changing. Communities such as Van Nuys, Panorama City, and Pacoima have large numbers of working poor families among their populations. The need is now demonstrable and justified statistically for expansion of Consolidated Plan resources.

The largest part of the Valley, both in area and population, belongs to the city of Los Angeles. Forty-seven percent of the land and 37 percent of the population of the city of Los Angeles are in the San Fernando Valley. The Los Angeles portion of the Valley is nearly 20 miles across at its widest point and 14 miles north to south, and dominates the six-city Valley, accounting for 80 percent of its population and 77 percent of its land area. Fourteen of the City’s CPAs are located in the San Fernando Valley.

The population of the San Fernando Valley grew at 7.4 percent from the Census 2000 date of April 1, 2000 to January 1, 2006, which was slightly slower than the City of Los Angeles (7.6 percent) and the County (7.6 percent) according to population estimates from the California Department of Finance released in May 2006. The population density of the Valley averages 6,303 people per square mile, which is much lower than the rest of the City of Los Angeles with 8,440 people per square mile.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 20 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California3. Identify Obstacles to Meeting Underserved Needs.

The 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan identified several obstacles to meeting underserved needs in the City; progress has been made in several areas but much work remains to be done. Those obstacles that continue to pose a major challenge to effective Consolidated Planning include:

The demand for public services remains sustained and outstrips the City’s ability to provide them

The primary obstacle to meeting underserved needs in the City is sustained high demand for public services, which the City is increasingly unable to fully meet because of continuing national decreases in CDBG and other federal assistance programs, and the limitations of a 15% cap on use of CDBG for public services. Currently, 34% of the CDBG grant received by Los Angeles is budgeted for public service and CBDO activities.

As part of the 33rd Year (PY 2007-2008) Action Plan budget last year, funding was set aside to engage the services of a qualified, independent firm to create a blueprint for the City in identifying the need for and method of delivery of comprehensive anti-gang and social service programs in an effective manner. Existence of a City Wide Needs Assessment and periodic program evaluations would have provided early warning of the past effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of these activities and others. CDD plans to continue effort to integrate all City social services systems to create a holistic services model. The Mayor and City Administrative Officer (CAO) plan over the next year to begin a dialogue with County of Los Angeles officials about opportunities to partner and collaborate in addressing social service needs for which the County is accountable; yet, or several years, these services have been allocated funding in the City’s Consolidated Plan.

Constraints on economic development by the need for small business training and the effect of existing land uses

One of the major obstacles to serving the needs of inner city communities is the difficulty fledgling micro-enterprises and existing small businesses have in finding time to receive the technical assistance and training that would help their business grow. Another barrier is the lack of available industrial land in the City that is appealing to investors.

City, State and Federal review and approval process and regulatory requirements

The City is a complex governmental entity, requiring many levels of reviews for varying purposes. The City by ordinance has adopted a number of contract overlays such as the Living Wage and Equal Benefits Ordinances, whose various mandates and requirements must be met prior to contracting of federal funds. Other federal and state regulatory requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also slow the process of translating Consolidated Plan and other federal and state funding into viable City programs.

The potential effect of future restructuring of existing public service programs on existing delivery systems

The organizational structure and delivery systems of the Human Services Delivery System (both the Neighborhood Action Program and Family Development Network components) and the City’s Gang Prevention programs will be re-examined and possibly modified over the next several years of the Consolidated Plan. This will undoubtedly result in a re-evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs, and retargeting of CDBG funds to a

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 21 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiadiffering or expanded clientele. Re-structuring may result in contracting delays or service disruptions. As a result of re-evaluation of the programs, services may be so modified to shift emphases away from previous clienteles.

Managing the Process (91.200 (b))

1. Identify the lead agency or entity for overseeing the development of the plan and the major public and private agencies responsible for administering programs covered by the consolidated plan.

The Mayor’s Office is the lead department for Consolidated Plan policy direction and funding priorities, review and approval of Consolidated Plan funding application cycles and calendars, review of funding recommendations received from the Community Development and Housing Departments, and in provision of Consolidated Plan funding recommendations to the Los Angeles City Council. The Community Development Department (CDD), LAHD, City Legislative Analyst (CLA) and the City Administrative Officer (CAO) assist the Mayor and Council in program and project review.

The CDD and the LAHD are responsible for preparation of the Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans, and for coordinating the update of all of the information contained therein of a demographic or programmatic nature. CDD also conducts a review of initial funding applications for eligibility and adherence to HUD National Objectives, which are then submitted to the Mayor for further review and funding recommendations. The City Council approves the Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans with the Mayor’s concurrence and with input from the City’s Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee (HCED) and the CAO. CDD received 225 applications for Consolidated Plan funding for Program Year 2008-2009.

The HCED and City Council schedule one or more public hearings on the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans. After Council approval and Mayoral concurrence, the Plan is submitted to HUD for review and approval. HUD has 45 days to review, modify, or reject the Consolidated Plan or it is deemed approved. The City’s program year extends from April 1 to March 31. Funds, however, are not available until the City has fulfilled all HUD requirements for the Consolidated Plan; resolved any outstanding audit or monitoring findings; completion of the Congressional review process; and execution of grant agreements for all four of the Consolidated Plan programs, evidenced by both the City and HUD approval.

In addition, all approved projects and programs are subject to both the NEPA (Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and CEQA environmental review process prior to HUD release of funds. For example, no CDBG funds may be drawn down for a project activity until an environmental review is conducted by CDD or LAHD environmental staff, and a request for release of funds (RROF) is provided to HUD for review; nor may costs already incurred by the City or its subrecipients be reimbursed until HUD provides a notice of release of funds.

CDD is responsible for responding to HUD and public inquiries regarding the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans in fulfilling its citizen participation responsibilities. CDD and LAHD’s respective financial management divisions, working in cooperation with the Mayor’s Office and other City departments and agencies, play an active role in identifying the financial status of slow-moving projects; assure that funds are drawn down from the

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 22 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCity’s HUD Line of Credit in a timely manner; assure prompt payment to City departments, related City agencies and other entities from grant funds; and, in conjunction with the CAO, CLA and other City departments and related City agencies, identify projects ready to fund so that grant resources are used more efficiently and in conformance with HUD’s requirements for timely use of Plan funds.

2. Identify the significant aspects of the process by which the plan was developed, and the agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process.

Development of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan is a highly participatory and inclusive process in Los Angeles. Over fifteen City departments and related City agencies, including the City’s Community Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority, contributed to the Five-Year Non-Housing Community Development strategy; and CDD, in conjunction with LAHD, formally consulted with two City Commissions, the Council on Aging and the Commission on Children, Youth and their Families to obtain their viewpoint on priorities for Consolidated Plan funding. CDD and LAHD consulted with service providers, existing non-profit social service and housing agencies, California state government, federal agencies, local commissions and City committees, and businesses in preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan.

Twelve community meetings were held throughout the City during the fall of 2007 and January 2008 to obtain citizen comments on Consolidated Plan priorities. This will be covered in greater detail in the section on Citizen Participation. The Consolidated Plan funding application process, which takes place in the fall, is an open process to all applicants; CPAS, or the Consolidated Plan Application System, permits applicants to complete and submit an on-line application for funding to CDD, which greatly enhances time frames to permit staff review of applications for eligibility and readiness; and in the case of CDBG, meeting of a National Objective. Five training sessions, each averaging over 30 participants, were held in October 2007 to train applicants in the CPAS system. CDD staff then reviews all applications for CDBG eligibility, meeting of a National Objective and readiness of the project based upon objective criteria.

The LAHD provides support to two City Commissions concerned with housing issues: the Rent Adjustment Commission and the Affordable Housing Commission. Each Commission meets twice monthly, with agenda items on various housing issues as well as time for general comments by the public on related matters. These provide an ongoing forum for participation by City residents about important housing-related issues. The Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plans are presented to the Affordable Housing Commission for their review and comments, and public comments are sought as well.

The Affordable Housing Commission (AHC) provides policy guidance regarding HOME, CDBG and ADDI funding priorities and allocations to housing activities. In order to provide input for the development of the five year Consolidated Plan, the Affordable Housing Commission (AHC) held a public discussion on the subject at one of its regularly scheduled meetings in September 2007. The minutes are included in this document.

The Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) provides policy guidance regarding the HOPWA funds received by the City from HUD. LACHAC held a public discussion on the subject at its regularly scheduled meeting in September 2007. The minutes are included in this document.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 23 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

3. Describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities, including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and homeless persons.

CDD, in conjunction with LAHD, formally consulted with three City commissions, including the Council on Aging, Commission on Children, Youth and their Families, and the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee to obtain their views on Consolidated Plan funding priorities and Plan content.

In order to provide input for the development of the five-year Consolidated Plan, the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) and the Affordable Housing Commission (AHC) held public discussions on the subject at their regularly scheduled meetings in September 2007. Brief summaries of those meetings are given in the Citizen Participation section of this document, and the meeting minutes are included as well.

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) – Coordination of Public Housing Policy and Practices with Homeless Programs

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) is the largest manager of affordable public housing in Southern California and coordinates with LAHD and other agencies on a wide variety of housing-related issues and supportive services. For example, HACLA administers three key programs to address the needs of the homeless for permanent, supportive, affordable housing. HACLA coordinates with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) and homeless contractors such as Skid Row Housing Trust in applying for annual Super NOFA funding for the Shelter + Care and the Sect ion 8 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Moderate Rehabilitation programs.

These HUD-funded programs address the permanent housing needs of the homeless, and demonstrate the ability of two major City agencies to integrate institutional resources and services in achieving two goals: helping the homeless to self-sufficiency and promoting affordable and decent housing.

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) ConsultationThe Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is an independent unit of local government (a Joint Powers Authority) created by the City and County of Los Angeles. LAHSA was created to provide leadership, advocacy, planning, and management of program funding within the Los Angeles Continuum of Care. LAHSA is governed by a ten-member Board of Commissioners, five of whom are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council, and one by each of the five County Supervisors.

LAHSA’s mission is to support, create and sustain solutions to homelessness in Los Angeles County. LAHSA has grown into a model structure for planning and coordinating publicly funded homeless programs throughout the region. As a lead entity administering homeless funds for the City of Los Angles, LAHSA is responsible for the planning process for the Continuum of Care.

The LAHSA Commission sets funding priorities and policy for homeless programs administered by LAHSA. Several Commission members as well as Executive and senior staff from LAHSA have participated in a wide range of planning activities with other City

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 24 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiadepartments as well as social service agencies to plan for homeless programs. These departments include the Los Angeles Housing Department, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles and the City Planning Department. Consultations were also conducted with social service agencies that provide emergency, transitional and permanent housing to homeless persons as well as providers of supportive services such as job training and mental health services. All these activities will inform the Commission in its discussion of funding priorities for using ESG and CDBG funds under the Consolidated Plan.

Citizen Participation (91.200(b)) - Summarize the City’s Citizen Participation Process

With submission of the first Five-Year Consolidated Plan in 1996 (and amended with the 2004-2005 30th Year Action Plan), the City adopted and submitted to HUD a Citizen Participation Plan (“CPP”) that outlines the way that the City will maximize citizen involvement in the preparation and decision-making required by the Consolidation Planning process, and assure that persons and businesses affected by Consolidated Plan programs resulting in displacement or relocation are provided assistance.

CDD, in conjunction with its advisory body, the Citizens Unit for Participation (CUP), amended the Plan in 2004 to clarify issues that had arisen since the time of adoption of the original plan. This document has several purposes: to set forth a strategy to encourage citizens to participate in the development of the Consolidated Plan, any substantial amendments to the consolidated plan, provides procedures for possible conflict of interest considerations and disclosure requirements, and the City’s Relocation and Anti-Displacement policy, as required by Consolidated Plan regulations.

The City’s Citizen Participation Plan requires that:

Information on the amount of HUD and other federal, state, county and local assistance, including all grant funds and anticipated program income, is provided to the public.

Information is provided on the range of activities that will be undertaken, including the estimated amount that will benefit low- and moderate-income persons.

The City will minimize displacement of persons and will assist any persons displaced.

The City specifies the types and levels of assistance to be made available to persons displaced, even of the city expects that no displacement will occur.

There is a statement of when and how this information will be made available; and that

The City will provide for processing and public notification of Substantial Amendments, or changes to approved Annual Action Plan projects. Substantial amendments are triggered by several events, including addition of new projects, deletion of existing approved projects, a change in beneficiaries, a change in the methodology used by the City in distribution of Consolidated Plan funds, and other situations.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 25 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaAvailability of the CPP to the PublicThe Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) requires adequate advance notice to citizens of each formal hearing on the Consolidated Plan, with sufficient information published in a public notice about the subject of the hearing to permit comment. The City provides for a 30-day public comment period prior to City Council adoption of the Plan and Annual Action Plans. The City fulfills this provision of the CPP annually, not only through publication of a printed notice, but through a variety of media. The public notice meeting schedule is also advertised on the CDD Web Site and the City Web Site, as well as the City Wide ENS (Early Notification System). The public can also obtain information on community meetings and formal public hearings by the Housing Community and Economic Development (HCED) Committee of the City Council, and the City Council itself from the ‘311’ City Wide telephone information system.

The City has refined and updated its Consolidated Plan E-mail data base to accommodate over 3,000 residents, agencies and businesses; information on the Consolidated Plan community meetings, funding opportunities and formal public hearings are provided regularly through this system.

Because of the sheer geographic size and diversity of the City and the extent of need, CDD arranges and holds six community meetings throughout the City during preparation of the draft Plan, and six prior to formal hearing on the Plan and adoption by the City Council. Although not required in the CPP, extensive community meetings permit the City to meet its consultation responsibilities more fully than minimum requirements, and enhance the usefulness of the Consolidated Plan.

Participants’ viewpoints are solicited at community meetings on a variety of topics including: potential gaps in City service; the need for targeting of services; best practices in Consolidated Plan preparation; identification of joint planning issues, and sharing of methods to increase citizen participation. Their responses are included in summary form on the following pages and in the 2008-2009 Action Plan Appendix.

As mentioned previously, in preparation for the 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan and First Year Action Plan, the City lead departments (the Community Development and Housing Departments) also consulted with several nonprofit health, social service and assisted housing agencies, City commissions, and providers of services for those with special needs (including the physically and developmentally disabled, persons with HIV/AIDS, seniors and homeless groups) in preparation of the 2008-2013 Plan. All meetings are advertised and open to the public.

On January 23, 2008, the City’s Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee heard public testimony on the draft Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. The Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans are provided free of charge electronically and in hard copy to the public. Copies of both the 2008-2013 Five-Year Consolidated Plan and 2008-2009 Action Plan are also available for public inspection at the six regional public libraries within the Los Angeles Public Library system.

All of these actions taken together fulfill the CPP goal of expanding public participation in the Consolidated Plan process.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 26 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

2. Summary of Discussions

Affordable Housing Commission

At the Affordable Housing Commission, the testimony by the public was concerned with a number of issues, including the subprime foreclosure problems facing City residents, and the need for more affordable homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income buyers. A suggestion was made that federal Department of Homeland Security grant funds should be available to enable first responders, such as firefighters and paramedics, to live within the City, so that they are closer when disaster hits.

Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee

At the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) meeting on Wednesday September 17, 2007 the HOPWA Senior Project Coordinator initiated the discussion. One speaker suggested a new category of HOPWA-funded supportive service, which would educate HOPWA contract agency staff and clients about the dangers of tuberculosis (TB) and hepatitis to persons with HIV. In addition, there are other communicable diseases such as drug-resistant Staphylococcus infections (MRSA), bed bugs, lice and scabies that are prevalent in homeless facilities that serve HOPWA-eligible clients, who are particularly vulnerable. The clients and agencies needs to be educated on these matters. The community would benefit from this type of program. It was announced at the LACHAC meeting, that other comments and written testimony would be accepted up to two weeks after the meeting.

LAHSA COMMISSION

The LAHSA Commission maintains an email list of over one thousand subscribers. Comments at the meetings are considered by the LAHSA Commission before it votes to approve or change the Consolidated Plan application. This year, general community meetings to discuss the homeless situation in Los Angeles and special workgroups to discuss specific subpopulations were convened to inform the 2007 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count. Comments from the following groups were incorporated into the implementation of the Homeless Count.

Law Enforcement (local police departments, County Sheriff Department, and Cali-fornia Highway Patrol);

Outreach Service Providers;

City and County staff from offices of elected officials;

Homeless/Formerly Homeless People (including homeless and runaway youth); and

Park Rangers.

The results of the Homeless Count will inform future planning processes and funding priorities in the City of Los Angeles. Additionally, they will support the City’s efforts to craft and implement plans to end homelessness by providing follow-up data to the baseline numbers from 2005 regarding the distribution of homelessness throughout the City. The

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 27 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiafindings of the 2007 Homeless Count reaffirm findings from the 2005 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, such as the poor health conditions of this population, including a high incidence of mental and physical disability. Above all, the information from the 2007 Homeless Count will help policymakers and providers alike, sharpen their focus on meeting the needs of homeless people, and bring to the forefront the urgent need to end homelessness for all populations.

Public Comments and Consultations

2. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views on the plan.

The following summarizes the results of the community meetings (needs assessments) held in September 2007 and January 2008, to obtain public input on the 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan and first year Annual Action Plan (PY 2008-2009).

South Los Angeles Service Area Community MeetingTuesday, September 4, 2007, 6:00 PMAscot Public Library120 W. Florence AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90003

Staff Attending:

Kim Olson and César Avalos – CDDEJ Martinez - LAHDPeter Lassen and Alma Woods – CUP members

Attendees: 9

Written Comments: Please publish RFPs for mini grants for small organizations and new start-ups. It is

difficult for new NPs to get started and also provide administrative training for them. Please fund the following: beautification of buildings, community programs for

children, youth and their families, community businesses, homeless population/rehabilitation, and senior housing.

Our young people face many problems than ever before. We need more programs to help get these young people on the right path. They are our future, and if we don’t do something regarding the violence we will have a lost generation of kids.

Oral Comments/Questions: Agencies like WLCAC should not be funded; they don’t do anything for the

community. What basketball court? Even if they (WLCAC) had one, nobody would go use it. All those properties are owned by WLCAC; that’s the reason no businesses are

opened; all they what is to gain for themselves.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 28 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Written Community Needs: Housing for elderly and disabled Housing for foster youth emancipated (18-21 yrs old) Jobs for youth—training programs Housing for domestic violence Public services Economic development Neighborhood/public improvements Public facilities After school programs Drug rehabilitation for youths and family Skate board arenas for young kids in different areas of the City Temporary homeless shelters offering job training

West LA Neighborhood Service Area Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 6:00 PMOakwood Recreation Center 767 California Ave Venice, CA 90291

Staff Attending: Michele Rose and Gabriela Zarate – CDD Sally Richman – LAHD Mindy Meyer – CUP member

Attendees: 6

Written Comments: Priority for funds should be given to uninsured adults. Priority for funds should be given to homeless people. Priority for funds should be given to specialty care access. Priority for funds should be given to mental health services integrated into primary

medical care. Recent government cuts in health care will decrease access to care for uninsured

patients through community clinics. Although there are many public health insurance programs available for enrolling children, adults have fewer options.

Oral Comments/Questions: The Vera Davis Center in Venice needs more money for services such as after-

school programs for children and for homeless people. The building is very old and is falling apart. More staff is needed to provide better service.

The City should have an Emergency Preparedness Day in Venice. Emergency response training is only available through the Fire Department, and their waiting list is very long.

Something should be done about RV parking in Venice. There are a lot of people living in their RV’s or in their cars. Residents are complaining because RV’s take a lot of space and don’t leave any parking for residents in the community. The City should come up with “designated” parking for RV’s and people sleeping in their cars.

After school programs are poorly advertised and are not being used enough. The people in the community don’t know about this center (Oakwood Recreation

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 29 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCenter). Also, there are some personnel issues, not everybody is getting along and that is one of the main reasons people in the community don’t send their kids to the centers.

Housing and Acquisition: There is no City program willing to commit to permanent rehabilitation programs.

Public Services Cap- LA’s BEST after school programs serves kids who are “highly” qualified and leave the other “ok” kids out. There needs to be a program who serves all kids equally and don’t leave any kids left out.

There is a high necessity for Gang Intervention. A lot of the kids don’t have any resources; therefore, they go into gangs.

Venice is a part of the City of Los Angeles that needs continuous support. It is not an all wealthy area as it appears. The median income for a high percentage of the people in the community is $35K. There is a tendency to forget that this city needs help.

Harbor Neighborhood Service Area Wednesday, September 5, 2007, 6:00 PMWilmington Public Library1300 N. AvalonWilmington, CA 90744

Staff Attending: Bob Hanks, Kim Olson and Gabriela Zarate – CDD Peter Lassen and Alma Woods – CUP members

Attendees: 3

Written Comments: Priority for funds should be given to affordable housing and transitional housing

programs for domestic violence victims and their children. Priority for funds should be given to childcare development centers. Priority for funds should be given to outreach counseling centers for domestic

violence victims. Funding for domestic violence shelters and programs are being cut every year from

all sources (City, State, Federal) and the shelters cannot remain viable or offer a continuum of care with the funding cuts and escalating costs.

Oral Comments/Questions: Do Work Source Centers have any partnerships with unions? Based on current rent levels, one participant did not agree with $11.80/hr as being

enough to afford basic necessities. Has the City considered combining the CDBG community meetings with the CAB

and/or CIPA meetings to garner more participation? Will CDD be offering more capacity building seminars in the upcoming year? Monies for rehabilitation and support programs for adults and juveniles just

released from prison should be available. There appears to be a problem in the Harbor area regarding affordable housing

and information of what is available and how to procure the affordable housing advertised. An agency tried to contact several of the housing projects and was unable to get a response from the contractors or owners.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 30 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Central Neighborhood Service Area Thursday, September 6, 2007, 6:00 PMEcho Park Library1410 West Temple StreetLos Angeles, CA 90026

Staff Attending: Michele Rose, César Avalos and Gloria Leonardo – CDD Sally Richman – LAHD Peter Lassen – CUP Member

Attendees: 9

Written Comments: Recreational facilities, additional LAPD officers, job training and health

services are greatly needed. Bilingual and bicultural community services such as advocacy, case

management, after school programs, affordable housing, adequate street lighting, and small business are also a great need in this community.

Oral Comments/Questions: The McArthur/Westlake Area is in need of various improvements such as

infrastructure, trees, and additional restrooms in the park. How will the residents apply for these funds to address these needs? – The Mayor’s letter for the 33rd program year indicated that stand alones will no longer be funded. Therefore, citizens should write to their Councilpersons to inform them of the community’s needs and they are the ones that could apply for these funds.

What is the city doing to address affordable housing? - The annual plan provides funds for various housing activities such as direct homeownership, rehabilitation, urgent repair, code enforcement, and the Handyworker program.

There was a discussion on new apartment complexes being built in the city as well as the expensive lofts in the downtown area. Affordable housing is necessary in this area. Concerns about mortgage troubles and foreclosures were also expressed.

Valley Neighborhood Service Area Thursday, September 6, 2007, 6:00 PMVan Nuys Public Library6250 Sylmar AveVan Nuys, CA 91401

Staff Attending: Bob Hanks and Kim Olson – CDD Becky Bendickson, William Huber and Virginia Huber –

CUP members

Attendees: 6

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 31 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaWritten Comments:

Priority for funds should be given to homeless services.

Oral Comments/Questions: What does an agency serving the homeless have to do to be considered for

CDBG funds? When does the City anticipate RFPs opening up to agencies? Do you have specific maps available online that shows low/mod census

tracts/areas in the City? To what degree do the Mayor and Council office staffs interact with the

Consolidated/Action Plan process? Does the City foresee any cutbacks in the four grants in the upcoming year? Is funding available for public safety programs such as street lighting? Can homeless people fill out the comment sheets?

Central Los Angeles Service Area Monday, January 14, 2008, 6:00 p.m. Edendale Public Library 2011 W. Sunset BlvdLos Angeles, CA 90026

Staff Attending: César Avalos, Mark Hoffman and Gabriela Zarate– CDD Peter Lassen – CUP member

Attendees: 14

Written Comments:

Sober Living Homes for low- and no-income tenants are needed. Mental health homes for low- and no-income tenants are needed. Permanent supportive housing for low- and no-income tenants is needed. Skid Row needs housing options for very low-income individuals.

Oral Comments/Questions:

Why is LA’s Best funded with federal funds? Why is it funded if it is not meeting its requirements?

Tree Initiative was a canopy initiative. Trees are being planted in poor areas.

Given the existence of Prop K money, why did Belmont get funded? Why is PACE still being funded? Are the new programs for hiring youth coming from the Mayor or the Youth

and Family Centers? Why are we using federal money for the Census? Why is Fair Housing funding being cut? As is, we need more money to help

the people in the community.

Speaker’s Observations:

The majority of attendees represented local organizations. Most attendees may have had prior experience with CDBG because the meeting flowed smoothly with little need for

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 32 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaclarification on the issues discussed. The introduction period allowed everyone present to provide a snapshot of the services provided to the community. This created an opportunity for networking, which was one of the most positive results of the meeting.

More work is needed to draw local citizens into the community meetings. The few residents in attendance, who were not representing organizations or agencies, questioned many of the items recommended for funding.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 33 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaHarbor Neighborhood Service Area Monday, January 14, 2008, 5:30 p.m. Wilmington Public Library 1300 N. AvalonWilmington, CA 90744

Staff Attending: Bob Hanks, Kim Olson– CDD Alma Woods – CUP member

Attendees: 13

Written Comments:

Who is developing housing for the City? Quality of life should be improved by addressing issues such as air

pollution, noise pollution, graffiti abatement, vandalism, and dumping of large items.

This community should have more comprehensive gang prevention services available to youth and families.

Develop more recreational space for all citizens. Locally funded agencies should be required to attend the meetings as a

form of accountability to the community.

Oral Comments/Questions:

Five people found out about the community meetings through agency e-mails or communications.

South LA commercially zoned property is being rezoned to residential to the detriment of economic development in the area.

Job training targeting youth does not make sense, when the adult or primary provider of a household is out of work or desires skills needed to compete for living wage jobs.

Current youth programs (after school, enrichment, mentoring, etc) do not provide enough exposure to cultural experiences outside their community.

Why are senior housing, care, and services not part of the Mayor’s priorities?

Several community members vocalized their appreciation to the Wilmington Adult Day Care program. The program provides services that are greatly needed.

There are a lot of agencies that are under funded or under staffed. These factors make it difficult for representatives to attend and participate in the community meetings.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 34 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaValley Neighborhood Service Area Monday, January 14, 2008, 6:00 PMCommunity Court Volunteer Center8134 Van Nuys Blvd.Panorama City, CA 91402

Staff Attending: Laura Ito and Sergio Samayoa, – CDD Candido Marez, Becky Bendikson, William Huber,

and Virginia Huber – CUP members

Attendees: 20

Written Comments:

Public Services in the local neighborhoods are needed. Gang Prevention programs are needed. Parenting Programs are needed. Tutoring programs should be made available.

Oral Comments/Questions:

What happened to the proposal to shift the CDBG program Year forward by three months (e.g. July 1, 2008 – June 30 2009)?

I am surprised that the Feds cut funding by 3%. I thought funds were set to increase.

Community Based Organizations (e.g. Community Court) were told “stand alone” projects would not be funded, but it looks like some of them got funding. Why?

(To the attendees) Some years ago, the handy worker program was about to be eliminated, but many seniors complained and the program was reinstated. Your input is very important.

Last year, a lot of money was taken from Valley projects and sent to Downtown projects through “reprogramming.” I hope it does not happen this year.

Most Valley CUP representatives are from Council Districts 3 and 12. It would be nice if more CUP members could be recruited/appointed to represent other parts of the Valley and to assist in identifying general needs or specific projects.

We are interested in learning what the clients of local Community Based Organizations need. Comments can be sent to CDD at any time.

Contact list should be distributed to all attendees.

Note Taker Observations:

In general, the meeting had a positive tone that was likely prompted by a notable increase in community participation. A significant amount of time was set aside to allow local agencies to describe the services they offer. The agencies participating in the meeting were diverse in many ways. Some agencies provided services to youth, while others primarily served the elderly. There was at least one developer of affordable housing in attendance, along with a representative for an organization on a mission to plant more trees in the City. Not all agencies in attendance were funded with CDBG. One agency was funded with no government assistance. A strong theme

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 35 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiarepeated during the meeting was the importance of networking among community organizations. It was agreed that emails on the sign-in sheet would be distributed to all attendees.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 36 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaSouth Los Angeles Service AreaTuesday, January 15, 2008, 5:30 PMAscot Public Library120 W. Florence AveLos Angeles, CA 90003

Staff Attending:

Kim Olson and Sergio Samayoa – CDDAlma Woods – CUP member

Attendees: 22

Written Comments:

Although CD 9 has a high need for services in both public safety and neighborhood activities, it is receiving only a small pot of funds…Why?

The low-income communities are in need of a cleaner environment. Single-parent families need employment. The schools are in need of educational materials and supplies. The system is less than equitable. Capital projects under the Con Plan

were required to be “ready” for completion in one year. The Vision project in CD 8 is recommended in the 33rd year and the 34th year. It is not near completion.

Community Health Councils (CHC) submitted a letter evaluating the nutritional resource environment in South LA and compared it to West LA. The agency concluded that South LA has significantly fewer grocery stores than the Westside and these stores often fail to carry healthy food items such as low fat milk, whole grain breads, cereals, and fresh produce. The letter notes that since CHC concluded its study, four full-service grocery stores have left South LA.

CHC respectfully requests that priority is given to projects that focus on improving the local food environment, and that new non-profit entities be seriously considered and granted funding.

Many of the large chain grocery stores have left the area (CD 10) or are too far for residents to access. CHC has worked in South Los Angeles to improve ways that residents can have access to healthy foods. CHC is requesting funds to encourage revitalization and economic development along Washington Blvd.

I am an owner of a small grocery store located on Washington Blvd. I have the opportunity to renovate my store with the assistance of a local non-profit organization—CHC. Please consider focusing CDBG funds for economic revitalization of local food stores and that CHC is funded.

$900 rent for a single unit is ridiculous; affordable housing is needed. Fair Housing is needed. Repair of streets and sidewalks is needed. More police patrols are needed in this neighborhood.

Oral Comments/Questions:

I am ecstatic that there are so many people here today!

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 37 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California We need more jobs in the area, so residents do not have to travel so far to

work. Commercially zoned areas are being converted to housing zones, which

translates to fewer jobs in the immediate community. Jobs are needed for adult heads of households. Musical classes like guitar should not be discontinued. There are good projects being funded with CDBG, but there’s not enough

funding in the budget for youth recreational activities. We need to look at priorities with long-term benefits. Older youth should have access to literacy programs.

Capital projects should be ready to go, but some were not ready last year and are not ready this year, but still get funded.

Newton Division (LAPD) has highest crime rate in the City and should get priority.

It seems as though there is more emphasis on the produce district in CD 9 than residential areas.

It is important to make your views known to City Council. Write letters to them.

Written Community Needs:

Part-time and/or seasonal employment for youth. Counseling services for families. Neighborhood and street clean-ups. Recreational activities for youth. Cultural activities for youth. Academic support services for teens between the ages of 13 and 17.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 38 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaWest Los Angeles Service AreaWednesday, January 16, 2008, 6:00 PMVera Davis McClendon Youth and Family Center600 California AvenueVenice, CA 90291

Staff Attending:

Michele Rose and Bob Hanks – CDDSally Richman - LAHD

Mindy Meyer – CUP member

Attendees: 46

Written Comments:

Open funding opportunities to new non-profit agencies providing services to homeless and other human services. Make it easier to get operating funds for new non-profits (Open City RFPs to new organizations).

Make low-interest loans available to new non-profits providing housing and developing new affordable housing.

Low interest loans for disabled individuals are needed. Necesitamos viviendas economicas y necesitamos Apollo para que no

existan los vendedores de drogas. (We need affordable housing and help in eliminating illegal drug sellers).

Remedial education/after school programs needed. Vocational training for at-risk youth 16-21 needed. Recidivism reduction through quality alternative innovative projects that

enable communication between at-risk youth City Wide. Grass roots organizations in Venice have been delivering services to the

community for free for years. It’s time for the City to support us financially. Funding for facility aid and buildings for programs. The homeless problem in public spaces needs to be addressed; homeless

people need a place to park their trailers and cars; shelters (transitional and permanent housing) for the homeless.

Fund youth development for successful organizations without a cap on years funded.

Companion Youth Learning Program (after-school mentoring and tutoring for ages 15-18) and a cultural events summer program needed.

Prison ministry – after care, job training, education, family reunification services needed.

Food bank program needed. Low funding results in unequal distribution among organizations within the

community of Oakwood. Old organizations are not being audited to show actual work; assure CDBG

funds are accounted for. Section 8 needs to be retained or otherwise Section 8 people will be

homeless. No es correcto que estemos perdiendo nuestras viviendas. (It’s not right that we are losing our homes). Holiday [sic] Venice esta perdiendo la Sección 8 por que los contratos ya no seran renovados en Septiembre 30, 2008. (Holyday Venice is losing its Section 8 because the contracts are not being renewed in September 30, 2008). If we lose the Section 8

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 39 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaBreezes del Mar units in Venice, over 200 more people will be displaced and many will once again become homeless; no one will help house the current homeless.

Need more affordable housing built; preserve existing affordable housing (Holiday/Venice and Breezes del Mar). Viviendas economicas para la ciudad de Venice. (Affordable housing for Venice). Save the affordable housing that exists in our area—P.O.W.E.R., 310-392-9700.

Senior nutrition lunches at senior centers need to be improved, and more programs for seniors and low cost legal services for seniors are needed.

Create Section 8 family-based affordable housing. Improve Culver-Slauson park facilities. Bring more funding to “invisible” low-income communities: Oakwood,

Holiday/Venice, Mar Vista Gardens. Neighborhood improvement - Increased economic development in the form

of retail food establishments needed. Increased number of quality sit-down restaurants needed. Greater physical activity sites and green space needed; establishment of more public parks. Improved aesthetics (graffiti removal, walkability, greenery, improved signage; building, planning facades). Problemas con drogas y pandillas. (There are problems with drugs and gangs). Job training and placement. Funds for rehabilitation and handicap adaptations are needed.

Since 1992, South Los Angeles has been one of the few areas to recede and show no signs of economic development or improvement. Funds should be allocated to improve basic necessities such as retail food establishments and physical activity sites that will spur development and increase jobs.

Graffiti removal and graffiti prevention programs. Concern for the safety for library patrons and use of library building by the

homeless. Establishment of Heritage Museum in Venice for Venice history. Need to be concerned about the future of our children so that they do not

become a burden to society when they become adults. Increase Pacific Graffiti Solutions funding - the Venice community has a

very big graffiti problem. Pacific Graffiti Solutions has been very responsive to the request of the community.

Child and youth development—create more education for children in Venice. Fund more after-school programs. Programas para los jovenes entre 12 – 17. (Youth programs for ages 12 – 17).

I feel Venice and West LA have been passed over when it comes to the seriousness and desperate need for funding.

Fair housing- Housing discrimination does exist and because of the major cuts in that specific line item, many citizens would be affected by it.

Need more funds to be generated in areas of financial needs, especially coming from government grants.

Mental assistance.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 40 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Oral Comments/Questions:

Ivette Neal of Pacific Graffiti Solutions stated that graffiti is rampant in Venice – she has only four employees, but needs ten. Her service area extends from Mulholland Boulevard to the north, to Imperial Highway to the south, Culver City to the west, and downtown Los Angeles to the east.

Dennis Hathaway of the Venice Neighborhood Council (N.C.) stated that the Council is trying to provide housing and other services for the homeless living in their cars. There were several representatives from this N.C. present at the meeting.

Eleven attendees, from the Holiday/Venice Tenant Action Committee, and POWER-LA addressed concern about the project-based Section 8 contracts for the Holiday/Venice multi-family housing developments, because the owner has sent notices about his intention to not renew the contracts. There are 200 units in 14 buildings and residents are facing possible loss of their homes after expiration of the contracts in October 2008, and residents are very anxious about this situation.

Four current tenants of the Holiday Venice development also provided testimony on this issue. Sally Richman spoke to this issue and explained that there are alternative approaches to this problem, and that the properties have been at risk in earlier years. She said that she would contact her LAHD colleagues who are involved in this issue, to work with the residents and the City Council office. The Vice President of the Holiday Venice tenants association recalled that 10 years ago, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein intervened to help the residents retain their Section 8 rental assistance.

Resident (unknown name) provided testimony on graffiti, explained that graffiti is symptomatic of youth problems; when it is called ‘blight’ it leads to other problems. She expressed concern that the term ‘blight’ is used as an excuse for eminent domain, resulting in gentrification and displacement of poor people.

Michele clarified the term “blight”. Ivette Neal and a local resident discussed the issue of graffiti as art or as blight, agreeing on the need to involve youth in productive art and community activities. The Community Center at which this meeting was held has several such programs on site, and they receive no city funding.

Resident asked about the $5 million home ownership line item – what was it for? Pointed out that with the housing bubble, housing counselors are advising against buying at the top of the market. He also pointed out that the funds should be spent instead for more affordable rental housing. S. Richman from LAHD explained that fair housing and LAHD’s administration budget are proposed for reduction and that it is difficult to balance all the competing demands for the funds, since there is so much housing need in the City.

Resident Edward Williams, who also works at the Westside Center for Independent Living, asked about the proposed $200,000 cut in Fair Housing, discussed the need for more aggressive fair housing discrimination actions and expansion of fair housing programs by the City. He said there is a great need for affordable housing for persons with disabilities and that all new housing should be built using universal design principles.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 41 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California One resident commented on the Mayor’s priority for youth development; felt

that federal funds need to be focused on after school programs at Los Angeles city recreational facilities. Also addressed need for renovation and repairs at the Culver-Slauson city park.

One commenter discussed need for additional sources of recreational facility funding and how to secure other funding.

Note Taker Observations:

Discussion ensued (led by M. Rose) regarding the need to determine program performance and outcomes, make federally funded programs more accountable and responsive to the City and communities.

Discussion of Census 2010 by Ms. Rose and Ms. Meyer, emphasizing the importance of an accurate count to assure that the City receive its full share of federal funding. Mayor’s budget provides recommended CDBG funding for 2010 Census planning and outreach/education.

Representatives from the 1736 Family Crisis Center stated that their organization was willing to take kids from Venice for shelter services.

Mindy Meyer discussed formation of the Affordable Housing Task Force asked for volunteer participants, discussed the Family Development Networks; stated that Jewish Vocational Services may be eligible for CBDO status (Community Based Development Organization).

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 42 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Wednesday, January 16, 2008El Sereno Library5226 Huntington DriveLos Angeles, CA 90032

Staff Attending: Sergio Samayoa and César Avalos – CDD Raul Estrada – CUP member

Community Attendance: 29

Written Comments:

Each comment sheet asked to identify the community needs for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Below is a list of comments submitted during the meeting.

Economic development. Neighborhood/Public improvements. Affordable housing. Public services. Arts/Music facility. Multimedia learning facility. Resource and outreach center. Affordable, full-time childcare. Mental health services. Affordable medical insurance. Million tree program. Hazard Park (wet Lands Restoration). Community gardens. More open space (parks). Ascote hill restoration into park.

Oral Comments/Questions:

Has anybody looked into immigration and tenant discrimination? Collaboration between Neighborhood Councils and Community-based

organizations (CBOs) is crucial to identifying community needs. Community members do not know how to access resources that are

available. It is our (CBOs) responsibility to inform the residents of the services we provide.

Rosehills Review walks the streets, talks to residents, and identifies problems such as broken street light or pothole, and notifies the City Council office and City department to fix the problem.

Homelessness is a big problem in El Sereno, as it is in the entire City. Council Office representative took comment sheets (English and Spanish)

to have local residents provide comments during the 30-day period. This community needs more music-oriented programs. There is a great

need and lack of such programs. CDBG funding seems difficult to access. The City should help CBOs

access resources. The City of Los Angeles has a program for Capacity Building.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 43 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Affordable housing is needed in this community.

Note Taker Observations:

The increase of attendees created a well-rounded representation of the East Side communities. It included local residents, businesses, non-profit organizations, local press, and government officials. The meeting seemed positive and interactive. The audience and presenter engaged in dialogue and exchanged information. A Spanish-language translator facilitated communication for one resident.

The presenter allowed every person to make an introduction to the group. Local organizations discussed their services, and provided local residents with additional information. The final 30 minutes of the meeting were set aside to allow for networking. Participants continued their conversations in the parking lot—well after the library was closed.

1. Provide a summary of efforts made to broaden public participation in the development of the consolidated plan, including outreach to minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities.

Please see the City’s Summary of the Citizen Participation process above. In addition, translators are provided at all community meetings on the Consolidated Plan, and sites for these meetings are verified as meeting ADA standards for accessibility. Flyers advertising community meetings are printed in both English and Spanish, as are all public notices pertaining to the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and the CAPER.

2. Provide a written explanation of comments not accepted and the reasons why these comments were not accepted.

The City accepted all comments from the public as a result of its twelve community meetings and the City HCED and City Council public hearings on the Consolidated Plan.

Institutional Structure (91.215 (i))

1. Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.

The City is governed by a fifteen-member City Council; each council district represents approximately 235,000 residents. An elected mayor is the chief executive officer of the city, and the official responsible for determining the funding priorities for the four Consolidated Plan grants. The City Council, with the concurrence of the Mayor, approves submission of the Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans to HUD. In addition, two standing committees of the City Council, the Economic Development and Employment Committee and the Housing and Community Development Committee review and hold hearings on these documents.

While the Los Angeles Community Development Department and the Los Angeles Housing Department have the major responsibility for Consolidated Plan budgeting, project formulation and program implementation, other city departments play an important role as well. For example, the Aging Department administers the Aging Services Delivery System, funded through CDBG and the Older Americans Act.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 44 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

CDD and LAHD, under the direction of the Mayor’s Office, coordinate production of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and the CAPER (Annual Performance Report) and provide technical assistance to implementing departments in writing the Plan narrative and in provision of data supporting the demographic requirements of the document.

The structure of the CDBG program is decentralized. While CDD does administer several program activities through its contract agencies, including several economic development programs, many project activities are administered by sponsoring City departments and City-related agencies such as HACLA and CRA. Guidelines for expenditure of CDBG funds are provided to departmental applicants simultaneously with notification of grant funding, and periodically CDD provides departments with training in HUD grant regulations, grant recordkeeping, and in preparation of the Consolidated Plan and CAPER.

Housing and Homeless ProgramsLAHD administers the Consolidated Plan grant funds utilized for housing purposes, including HOME, HOPWA, ADDI, ESG and CDBG funds allocated for LAHD programs. Funds are distributed through a variety of methods, depending on the program. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund issues competitive Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) for housing developers to apply for subsidies, which are timed and structured to coincide with federal and state application procedures and deadlines. LAHD’s rehabilitation loan programs and homeownership assistance programs operate on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis.

Several other programs, such as Handyworker and Home Secure, which offer simple rehabilitation services to eligible elderly or disabled low income households, are implemented by contract agencies chosen by LAHD via competitive RFP processes. HOPWA funds are also allocated to programs implemented by competitively selected contract agencies, as are the CDBG and ESG funds utilized by LAHSA for homeless services and shelters.

Coordination - HOPWA and HIV/AIDS ProgramsWith oversight by LAHD, the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) weighs in on all HOPWA programs countywide. This 18-member committee was created to provide a broad base of expertise to the HOPWA planning process. The committee is comprised of representatives from the Los Angeles County Commission on HIV Health Services, which locally administers federal Ryan White CARE Act monies; representatives of the Homeless Services community; representatives with non-profit housing development expertise; and public officials of the County of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, including the City of Los Angeles AIDS Coordinator, and the cities of Long Beach, Pasadena, and West Hollywood. Membership also includes individuals who themselves are HIV positive and several representatives from AIDS service organizations. LAHD’s HOPWA unit coordinates all HOPWA programs conducted countywide and within the city, linking nonprofit service and housing providers to PLWH/A (Persons living with HIV/AIDS) and their families.

Coordination with various local governments within the Los Angeles-Long Beach region occurs through participation as members of the HOPWA planning process and monthly LACHAC meetings and subcommittee meetings. All HOPWA meetings are public, and all materials provided to committee members are available to the public.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 45 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Housing Authority ProgramsThe Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) manages over 60 Public Housing locations (large developments, scattered and senior sites) with more than 7,400 housing units. HACLA also oversees the management of smaller Section 8 New Construction and other affordable and market rate properties for families or elderly residents. This brings the total number of units provided by HACLA to low-income families and individuals throughout Los Angeles to 9,080, ranging from San Pedro to the San Fernando Valley and from Mar Vista to the Eastside of Los Angeles. The Section 8 program, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides rental housing assistance to extremely low and very low-income families, senior citizens, and disabled or handicapped persons.  Its objective is to provide affordable, decent and safe housing for eligible families, while increasing a family’s residential mobility and choice.  HACLA, a state-chartered public housing agency since 1938, now administers the second largest Section 8 Program in the country.

The Housing Authority has two different types of rental subsidies—tenant-based and project-based programs. Both programs have similar income-based admission requirements set by HUD.  Households with a tenant-based subsidy have a voucher that allows them to move from one place to another.  Those in the project-based programs live in a building in which the units are subsidized.  If a tenant moves from the building, they lose their rental subsidy.  Generally, those in the project-based programs and some tenant-based programs for special populations are referred by various agencies and building owners to the Housing Authority, which confirms they meet all the Section 8 eligibility requirements. Households on the Housing Voucher tenant-based program come from the Housing Authority’s waiting list of applicants.  As of September 2007, HACLA has funding for 51,660 units assisting about 100,000 total family members.

Los Angeles Homeless Services AuthorityThe Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is an independent unit of local government (a Joint Powers Authority) created by the City and County of Los Angeles. LAHSA was created to provide leadership, advocacy, planning, and management of program funding within the Los Angeles Continuum of Care. LAHSA is governed by a ten-member Board of Commissioners, five of whom are appointed by the Mayor of Los Angeles and confirmed by the City Council, and one by each of the five County Supervisors.

LAHSA plays a key role in coordinating homeless programs with the City and County. Coordination between the City and County of Los Angeles is critical because each controls crucial financial and program resources. LAHSA also integrates its planning efforts in eight Service Planning Areas with nonprofit service providers, community residents, the business community, schools, law enforcement, and other local governments, such as the 85 cities (excluding Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena) within the County. Funds for homeless programs from the Consolidated Plan will be used to support various components of the Continuum of Care (CoC) operated by nonprofit housing and service providers.

Several City departments and entities such as the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles participate in carrying out the strategies to end homelessness. However, as the lead entity of the CoC, LAHSA will maintain a pivotal role in the implementation of these

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 46 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiastrategies.

WORKSOURCE CENTERS2007 saw a significant development that has strengthened the institutional and program links between CDD’s WorkSource program and the Los Angeles Community College District, that will result in significant benefits for the unemployed and the working poor. Los Angeles City College (LACC) and the Hollywood WorkSource Center have teamed up to put job and educational resources at one location at Los Angeles City College, which will constitute a strong partnership that aligns education and training with job opportunities. It also allows job training professionals to reach a larger population of young adults in an area that is typically underserved, and it will serve employers seeking a job-ready workforce.

There are 18 WorkSource Centers throughout Los Angeles, which are “one-stop” destinations that offer jobseekers access to computers, information on job openings, recruitment events, training and other services. Businesses and employers use the centers to find qualified employees and fill vacant positions.

The Community Development Department and the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) oversee the WorkSource Centers, which deliver top quality employment services. At LACC, specialized training programs will be available to put job seekers in line for work in some of the fastest growing industries in the region. This will include the new Workforce Readiness Academy portfolio of non-credit classes accessible to students and non-students alike.

This WorkSource Center will offer direct access to training programs in the City’s growing industries, such as logistics, healthcare, construction, and hospitality,

As mentioned previously, while the lead departments in the Consolidated Plan process are the Mayor’s Office, Community Development Department and the Housing Department, there are nevertheless a significant number of city agencies and departments that oversee a wide variety of grants and programs that provide services to low- and moderate-income city residents, and play an important role in implementing Consolidated Plan project activities:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES DECISION-MAKING BODIES Office of the Mayor City Council and Council Committees (Housing, Community and Economic Devel-

opment primary for the Consolidated Plan) City Planning Commission Community Planning Area Commissions Community Redevelopment Agency Board of Commissioners Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Commission Workforce Investment Board

CITY OF LOS ANGELES AGENCIES Aging Department Building and Safety Department City Legislative Analyst (CLA) City Administrative Office (CAO) Commission On the Status of Women

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 47 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Commission on Children, Youth and their Families Community Development Department (CDD) Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Cultural Affairs Department Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) (Joint powers agency with

County of Los Angeles) Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) Los Angeles Public Library Planning Department Board of Public Works, including Bureau of Street Services, Engineering, and

Lighting Recreation and Parks

CITIZENS BOARDS Affordable Housing Commission Rent Adjustment Commission Enterprise Zone/Empowerment Community Advisory Councils Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) The Citizens’ Unit for Participation (CUP) Community Action Board (CAB) Workforce Investment Board (WIB)

CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS Aging California Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Commerce-Office of Business and Industrial Development Corporations Department of Community Services and Development Emergency Services Employment Development Department (EDD) Energy Commission Secretary of State Fair Employment and Housing Department of Finance California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) Housing and Community Development (HCD) Insurance Parks and Recreation-Office of Historic Preservation Real Estate Savings and Loans State Banking Department California State University and Colleges Veterans Affairs

REGIONAL AND COUNTY AGENCIES County of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Community Development Commission Southern California Association of Governments Department of Public Social Services Department of Children and Family Services

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 48 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Area Agency on Aging Department of Health Services California Office of Traffic Safety Department of Probation Regional Centers (Rehabilitation/Disabled)

FEDERAL AGENCIES Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Small Business Administration (SBA) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Veterans Administration (VA) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Economic Development Administration (EDA) Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Department of Labor Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFIF)

Major participants in the Consolidated Plan process locally include:

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (CDD)With a staff of over 300 individuals, CDD administers and distributes federal grants in excess of $150 million annually to over 200 agencies throughout the city. Each year, these programs provide social services to over 80,000 poor and disadvantaged City residents; job training and placement to 9,000 individuals; summer employment to over 10,000 youth; and a wide range of business and financial services to promote employment and business opportunities in distressed communities.

There are three operating departments that manage the various grants, and are responsible for bringing vital services to the City’s low- and moderate-income residents. They include:

HUMAN SERVICES AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (HSFD)The Human Services and Family Development Division administers service contracts for programs as diverse as child safety, gang intervention, literacy and citizenship training, child care, substance abuse treatment, counseling, case management, youth development programs, health related services, child and adult day care, information and referral services, legal aid, emergency food and shelter programs. Recently, City and County staff began discussions on how the City and County can increase linkages between the County’s Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) programs such as food stamps and welfare and the City’s Family Development Network (FDN) and the Youth and Family Centers (YFCs). Initial ideas include training FDN staff on how to pre-screen clients for referral to DPSS agencies.

NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (NDD)The Neighborhood Development Program assists non-profit agencies to acquire, design, renovate and construct neighborhood facilities which house programs such as childcare, transitional shelters, libraries, health clinics, youth activity centers, and senior citizen facilities.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (WDD)One of the critical goals for the Five-Year Consolidated Plan is to align the goals and activities of the WDD with those of the Economic Development Division (EDD) and the Human Services

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 49 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaDelivery System managed by CDD, HSFD.

The WDD system includes:

The WorkSource program, which provides placement and training in a variety of occupations, is available at no cost for adults who need help in entering or re-entering the workforce. The WorkSource Center Network is composed of 25 facilities located throughout the city that provide training and placement services. Special services are also available for older workers, dislocated workers, and workers with disabilities.

The Customized Employment Service, a partnership between industry, government, and education that uses governmental resources to help employers in recruiting, training, and hiring qualified employees. Private Sector Initiative staff work closely with employers to design a Customized Training program that best suits business growth and expansion needs. Staff services include help with planning, oversight, evaluation, training and follow-up.

The Youth Opportunities program is a full service center for youth education and job training in South Los Angeles.

Community Service Centers (now ETCs) are funded through the CDBG program and administered by the Housing Authority. These projects, located at ten conventional public housing sites, offer education, computer training, counseling and referrals, and other supportive services.

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDThe mission of the City’s Workforce Investment Board (WIB) is to develop, in concert with the Mayor and City Council, policy and strategy to ensure that business has access to a trained workforce and workers have access to quality jobs. All of the WIB's services operate on the premise that upward mobility for workers impacts and elevates the prosperity of cities, counties, states, and the country.

The Los Angeles WIB promotes economic well-being locally by:

Improving employment opportunities for workers by enriching their knowledge base, growing their skill set, and identifying job openings;

Providing tax incentives, benefits and other support services to businesses; and

Guiding the city's workforce policy priorities and investments.

The WIB oversees the expenditure of over $50 million in public funds annually. Individual board members are selected from the leadership ranks of the education, economic development, and organized labor fields as well as other key players in the Los Angeles economy. WIB members are appointed by the Mayor; the majority of sitting board members represent the private sector.

Workforce Investment Board programs are available to workers and businesses through "WorkSource Centers" throughout the Los Angeles Area. Most services are available at no charge.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 50 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe WIB’s goals include:

Improve the core levels of education achievement for both adults and youthThe Los Angeles Workforce Investment Board initiates programs designed to provide educational facilities and mentoring to both in-school and out-of-school youth. Adult literacy programs are also promoted.

Connect workers and businesses to information on jobs and servicesThe WIB accomplishes this goal through eighteen WorkSource Centers which provide services to individuals and businesses. WorkSource Centers are based in easily accessible locations throughout Los Angeles. WIB oversees the operations and curriculum of all these centers as well as four facilities dedicated strictly to needs of youths, ages 14 - 21-years old.

Increase the percentage of workers earning quality wagesWIB delivers customized training to upgrade worker skills and qualify them for positions in growing California industries.

WIB particularly targets the following sectors which are showing growth in these areas:

Transportation / Goods Movement / Logistics Construction / "Green" Construction Industrial / Manufacturing / "Green" Technology Healthcare and Life Sciences Early Childcare and Education Worker Training Private Security Officers Training Hospitality/Tourism Worker Training Public Sector and Utilities Promote social equity

WIB strives to ensure that Los Angeles workers earn wages which provide for self-sufficiency and that residents facing particularly onerous barriers to employment have access to WIB's programs, and the opportunities derived from them.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF CDDThe EDD is responsible for oversight of the economic development products and services available from the City. EDD manages the Industrial Development Authority, the Los Angeles Business Assistance Program (LABAP), the State and Federal Business Incentive Zones, the various CDBG-funded loan programs and a recently awarded New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) allocation to the Los Angeles Economic Development Fund.

EDD’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS) was developed under the oversight of an advisory board composed of leaders in economic development, the Mayor’s Office Economic Development and the Community Redevelopment Agency. The EDS’s goal is to provide guidance in setting priorities for economic development projects that will help address the City’s need for well paying jobs and strong and vibrant local economies.

The various EDD economic development products and services are carried out through a variety of outlets. The LABAP services are delivered through the use of non-profit organizations that are selected through a competitive process. Major economic development projects are managed in-house through the EDD Lending Unit, which works closely with the

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 51 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCommunity Redevelopment Agency to conduct feasibility studies and determine the best mix of financial resources and the appropriate partners for implementation. And last but not least, the EDD Business Development Unit markets and manages the business incentive zones.

The EDD also oversees three State Enterprise Zones as well as a Federal Empowerment Zone and Renewal Community designations. Within these areas, businesses can take advantage of State and/or Federal tax credits and deductions not available to businesses elsewhere. The goal of the incentives is to stimulate business attraction, growth, and increased employment opportunities within economically challenged areas of the City.

Enterprise Zones assist businesses located in the zones to lower their operating costs by providing them with tax credits and deductions. The state offers incentives such as: hiring credits, sales & use tax credits, expense and interest deductions. The City offers local incentives such as, DWP rate discount, site fee waivers, sewer facility hookup payment plans, and reduced parking rates.

The Los Angeles Enterprise Zone was conditionally designated by the State on October 15, 2006. When the designation becomes permanent, it will be valid for 15 years. In addition, the Eastside State Enterprise Zone designation is valid through January 10, 2008, and the Harbor Zone through March 3, 2009.

A fuller discussion of the City’s economic development programs may be found in the section Non-Housing Community Development.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION (ASD) OF CDDASD develops the Consolidated Plan, annual Action Plans, the CAPER (Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report), administers the Community Development Block Grant, manages the Citizen Participation process; conducts environmental reviews, and prepares the annual departmental budget. ASD works closely with the Mayor’s Office, the CAO, and the CLA in providing Consolidated Plan-funded program and project data, analysis of undisbursed project balances, and project demographic data.

ASD is also responsible for a wide range of supportive services, including: processing of accounts payable, procurement and vendor management, determines eligibility and readiness for projects proposed for CDBG funding; trains departmental and external City staffs in HUD and OMB federal grant management and record keeping requirements; trains City and departmental staff as well as agency applicants in the CPAS (Consolidated Plan Application System) on-line system; assures HUD grant program compliance through review of completed PEP forms and conduct of field reviews; coordinates closely with the Financial Management Division of CDD in determining unspent balances of CDBG funds, this to assure compliance with City and HUD timeliness standards for disbursement of funds; compiles and maintains a library of City demographic and U.S. Census information, and provides miscellaneous support services for other divisions.

In 2006, the General Manager re-organized the ASD to integrate the CDD Contracts Unit in its structure. This unit reviews all contracts for City and federal requirements; assures clear and accurate scope of services; assures that all City-required overlays are included (such as the Living Wage Ordinance); and manages the CDD Contract Tracking System, among many other responsibilities.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION (FMD) OF CDDFMD fulfills several critical grant financial management functions; FMD staff prepare financial reports, conduct on-site fiscal reviews for programs and agencies that receive grant funds,

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 52 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaprocess cash requests from contracted agencies and vendors, receive and account for program income and loan receivables, prepare cash disbursement and revenue reports for the various federal and state grant programs under its purview; and provide technical assistance in administering federal assistance funds.

LOS ANGELES HOUSING DEPARTMENT (LAHD) The Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) was created by ordinance in 1990 to address the City's housing crisis. The LAHD is the principal housing agency of the City of Los Angeles, and is charged with the development of citywide housing policy and supporting safe and livable neighborhoods through the promotion, development and preservation of decent and affordable housing.

LAHD is the administering agency for four of the five Consolidated Plan grants. In the current year it is responsible for allocating over $78 million for new affordable rental housing construction, first time homebuyer assistance, a variety of rehabilitation programs, supportive services and housing assistance for persons living with HIV/AIDS and homeless residents, and other housing programs. Each year, LAHD staff routinely inspects over 190,000 rental units for compliance with health and safety codes to ensure decent living conditions, in addition to nearly 10,000 complaint inspections. Annually, over 200,000 inquiries from the public about Rent Stabilization and Code Enforcement are received and nearly 10,000 investigations are undertaken as well.

The LAHD is organized into three bureaus to achieve its mission: Regulatory Compliance & Code, Housing Development, and Administration:

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

The Housing Development Bureau consists of the Major Projects Division and the Home Ownership & Preservation Division. Core functions are:

to produce and preserve affordable rental housing with financing via the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) and the Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP);

to provide purchase assistance to low and moderate income first-time homebuyers; to preserve affordable housing by rehabilitating single-family and small rental

properties through comprehensive housing rehabilitation programs; and to reduce lead-based paint hazards in the City through education and remediation.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE & CODE BUREAU

The Regulatory Compliance & Code Bureau is made up of the Code Enforcement Division, the Rent Stabilization Division and the Compliance Division. Core functions are:

to ensure habitability and housing code compliance for all multifamily housing, including residential hotels, in the City through the Systematic Code Enforcement Program;

to ensure tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance are both protected and achieved with public information and complaint investigations;

to ensure due process rights for property owners and tenants subject to enforcement actions; and

to bill property owners for all applicable fees under applicable ordinances resulting in revenue in excess of $40 million annually

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 53 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California ADMINISTRATION BUREAU

The Administration Bureau is composed of the Accounting Division, the Budget and Management Services Division, Grants Management, and the Systems Division.

The Executive Management Division includes executive staff, Policy & Planning, Public Information and Personnel.

LAHD provides support to two City Commissions concerned with housing issues: the Rent Adjustment Commission and the Affordable Housing Commission. Each Commission meets twice monthly, with agenda items on various housing issues as well as time for general comments by the public on related matters. These provide an ongoing forum for participation by City residents about important housing-related issues. The Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plans are presented to the Affordable Housing Commission for their review and comments, and public comments are sought as well. The Affordable Housing Commission (AHC) provides policy guidance regarding HOME, CDBG and ADDI funding priorities and allocations to housing activities.

In addition, as part of its role as administering agency for the HOPWA grant, LAHD provides support to the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC). LACHAC provides policy guidance regarding the HOPWA funds; its membership includes a variety of stakeholders.

LAHD plays an important role in seeking other resources to leverage with Consolidated Plan grants to address housing issues. For example:

Nearly $17 million in grants from the State of California Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN) and the Cal-HOME Program for down payment assistance awarded to LAHD since 2001;

Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds (MRBs) and Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs) awarded since the late 1980s;

Lead-based paint hazard control funds from HUD which are available as grants to supplement LAHD’s rehabilitation programs;

Partnership and joint mortgage revenue bond issuance with the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), which also qualifies homebuyers for additional help from the California Homebuyer Assistance Program (CHAP) and the California Homebuyer Downpayment Assistance Program (CHDAP), which provide cash grants of up to 3 percent of the purchase price.

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (HACLA)HACLA provides housing assistance to low-income citizens of Los Angeles. The various programs administered by HACLA provide approximately 47,000 rental housing units to low-income families, senior citizens, and disabled persons. Rental housing units are either HACLA-owned or operated buildings, or in private housing made possible through rent subsidy programs.

The two largest programs in HACLA are the Conventional Housing Program and the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program (HAPP). The Conventional Housing Program consists of 21 housing developments and small scattered site developments with a total of 8,761 dwelling units, housing more than 31,000 residents. Developments range in size from the 100-unit Rose Hill Courts complex in the Lincoln Heights area of the east side to the 1,066-unit Nickerson Gardens complex in Southeast Los Angeles. The other major program,

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 54 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaSection 8 HAPP, provides a rent subsidy in the form of monthly housing assistance payments to private landlords on behalf of eligible families, senior citizens and disabled persons. There are currently 16,486 households on the waiting list for this program.

The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles appoints the members of HACLA's Board of Commissioners; the City Council confirms the appointments. The seven-member board sets HACLA policy, appoints the executive director, and works to ensure that the agency meets its basic goal of providing decent, safe and sanitary housing for low-income families. HACLA also manages and maintains several Community Service Centers (CSC). The salaries of the employees at the centers are funded with Community Development Block Grant funds.

The City of Los Angeles reviews all proposed HACLA development sites through the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Department of Building and Safety. The Comprehensive Plan of the HACLA is incorporated into the HACLA consolidated budget process. Both the Board of Commissioners and HUD approve the HACLA budget. HACLA receives most of its funding from the federal government through HUD. California State law sets forth the governing conditions for public housing to which HACLA must adhere. HACLA is also bound by the Code of Federal Regulations including HUD regulations and guidelines.

HACLA’s mission has evolved over the last several years to encompass a variety of education, training, and service programs designed to encourage economic self-sufficiency and improve the quality of life for public housing residents.

CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT City Planning (DCP) is responsible for preparing and maintaining the General Plan, which guides city decision-making concerning land use, service systems, and circulation. A 5-member Planning Commission, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, provides policy guidance on planning and zoning matters related to all development actions.

The General Plan is composed of seven elements, including long-range plans for housing, land use, air quality, open space, safety, and circulation. The Housing Element is a 5-year policy and program document, prepared by the Planning Department and adopted by the City Council, as required by State law (Section 65580). This Element identifies city housing needs and establishes the official goals, policies, and programs to address them. In addition, the Department administers thirty-six community plans that encompass the City.

The General Plan is implemented through zoning ordinances, specific plans, and capital improvements. This promotes an environment that encourages rational growth, economic vitality and a decent living environment for its citizens. Additionally, the Planning Department is responsible for the processing of requests for discretionary entitlements for land use development. These activities encompass preparation and review of environmental impact reports for private sector projects; processing of requests for conditional use permits, variances, zone changes, and subdivisions; and administration of specific plan regulations. Planning receives funds through the CDBG program to provide data mapping and geotechnical services in support of Consolidated Plan funded programs and applications.

The Planning Department is working with the City’s major economic development partner, CRA/LA, in identifying areas currently zoned for industrial use that have the greatest potential for quality job creation. Coordination will result in a pool of higher-quality and more cost-effective projects with strong public benefit, and will therefore have substantial CDBG and Section 108 Loan Guarantee funding potential.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 55 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCOMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA/LA)The Community Redevelopment Agency of the city of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) was established by resolution of the Los Angeles City Council in 1948 pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code). It is a major partner with the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development and CDD’s Economic Development Division in implementation of economic development project activities, often using CDBG funds and Section 108 Loan Guarantee (HUD) proceeds as a critical catalyst for affordable housing and economic development.

Legally, The CRA is a public agency established to primarily eliminate physical and economic blight, and performs this charge through a variety of activities:

By attracting private investment into economically depressed communities; Eliminating slums, abandoned or unsafe properties and blight throughout Los Angeles; Revitalization of older neighborhoods through historic preservation, rehabilitation, and

new development; Building housing for all income levels; Encourage economic development; Create and retain employment opportunities; Support the best in urban design, architecture and arts, and Ensure the broadest possible citizen participation in its activities.

A Board of seven Commissioners appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, overseas the CRA/LA. A Chief Executive Officer appointed by the Board directs the staff. Under an “Oversight Ordinance,” adopted in 1991, every action of the CRA/LA is subject to City Council approval. CRA/LA redevelopment activities are managed through seven regions throughout Los Angeles: East Valley, West Valley, Hollywood & Central, Downtown, Eastside, South Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Harbor regions.

CRA/LA currently operates in 32 redevelopment project areas and 3 revitalization areas in the seven regions throughout Los Angeles. Redevelopment Project Areas are designated as blighted by the CRA/LA Board, the Mayor and the City Council for which a redevelopment plan has been approved as required by the California Redevelopment Law. The CRA adopts comprehensive plans for redevelopment areas. These plans provide guidelines and strategies for removing physical and economic blight and provide a vision, goals and timetables for generating growth and new opportunities. Redevelopment plans are created with political, business, and community participation. The plans are the roadmap for spurring growth, creating new housing and improving the quality of life and general welfare of the people who live and work in and around redevelopment areas.

A key CRA/LA objective is to create quality, well--paying jobs in City redevelopment areas through economic development projects and through policies that encourage job creation in projects receiving CRA assistance. In 2003, CRA/LA adopted policies requiring the payment of living wages in certain projects receiving a threshold level of financial assistance.

CRA may be thought of as one leg of the table; CDD, the second; the Office of the Mayor, third; and the developer community the fourth. Redevelopment Project Areas are designated by the CRA/LA Board, the Mayor and the City Council for which a redevelopment plan has been approved as required by the California Community Redevelopment Law. The CRA, while governed by state regulations takes its direction from the Mayor and City Council. CRA seeks private investors for projects and works with the Community Development Department (CDD) to help manage grants as well as helping to execute the Mayor’s goals for the City.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 56 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaOne cannot work without the other as all “legs” are needed to make sure developments and goals are met in a timely fashion.

All Los Angeles communities have unique needs. Because it is critical that the needs and aspirations of these communities are understood, CRA/LA communicates accurately and in a timely fashion about its plans and programs by expanding its emphasis on community relations and outreach.

The CRA/LA’s funding is derived primarily from four sources:

Property Tax Increment generated from the redevelopment areas, at least 20% of which is set aside for low and moderate income housing.

Tax Allocation Bond Proceeds, at least 20% of which are typically restricted for housing.

Grants from a variety of sources, including the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations, federal Economic Development Administration (EDA) programs, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) “Call for Projects,” AB 1290 funds, and bond programs such as Propositions A, C, and K for transportation and parks projects.

Other General Revenues including the proceeds of land sales, developer payments, rental income, loan repayments, and investment income.

The California Community Redevelopment law specifically mandates that redevelopment agencies act to retain and expand the affordable housing stock. The law requires 20% of the revenues accruing to a redevelopment agency be set aside for affordable housing. CRA/LA has increased its contribution to 25% in projects adopted after January 1, 1994. Approximately another 20% of the incremental property tax is returned to other taxing entities, including the County, City, School District, and Community College District.

The CRA/LA redevelopment work program is classified into five major categories by type of activity. Each activity type represents a CRA/LA priority in redevelopment:

Economic Development – Activities designed to improve the economic environment of a neighborhood through development that facilitates expansion of existing businesses, including retail, commercial, and industrial uses.

Housing – CRA/LA’s housing set-aside funds, provided through tax increment financing are used for rehabilitation, homeownership, and multifamily rental housing in the redevelopment project areas.

Public Improvements – These are primarily infrastructure-related activities such as street and sidewalk improvements, street lighting, façade improvements, etc. These improvements enhance the aesthetics of a neighborhood, thereby making the neighborhood more competitive for business retention and growth.

Mixed Use – These are developments that contain a variety of uses, such as housing, retail, and community space on one project site; and

Community Development – Activities designed to improve the overall livability of a neighborhood through the facilitation of public services such as transit centers, parks, public art, libraries, etc.

Creating quality affordable housing is a major component of CRA/LA’s mission. CRA is providing $10 million toward the $50 million Permanent Supportive Housing Initiative, funded as well by the Los Angeles Housing Department, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This fund is

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 57 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaexpected to create 300 units of housing for chronically homeless individuals, homeless families and youths, and others at high risk of homelessness

Redevelopment opportunities are unpredictable. Projects are planned and executed with a multitude of variables outside the control of CRA/LA Staff. They include fluctuations in interest rates and construction costs, changing market opportunities, community acceptance, land use approval, sufficient private financing and the ability of the CRA/LA and other leveraged funds to close the financing “gap” between available funds and actual construction costs.

The agency utilizes CDBG funds primarily for projects with critical financing gaps; as such, it is a vital source of funding for CRA/LA projects. CDBG has been and continues to be used for acquisition, streetscape improvement projects to get rid of blight and unsightly sidewalks, storefronts, and the Brownfields program. CRA/LA resources, including CDBG, Section 108, and other sources of federal funding are being used for a variety of programs in each redevelopment project area. Programs include creation and rehabilitation of housing and commercial developments, construction of façade improvements and streetscapes, reconstruction of deteriorated public facilities, and other activities. All CRA/LA activities must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan and with each project area’s five-year implementation plan.

CRA/LA and CDD will be working together more closely than ever before over the next several years, because of the increasing need for economic development throughout the City. A number of residential/commercial mixed use developments and transit oriented community development projects will be coming to the forefront.

CRA/LA’s Director of Resource Development works with the Mayor’s office of Housing and Economic Development, and keeps the Mayor’s office aware of projects that are currently in process; and also advises of opportunities for development in the different redevelopment project areas. The CRA/LA’s Resource Development Department submits a list of priority projects for federal earmarks in concert with the Mayor’s proposed activities and priorities.

CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CLA) AND CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CAO)Under the direction of the City Council, the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) has the responsibility of coordinating all lobbying and official legislative activity, including housing and community development policy, legislation and issues, on behalf of the City.

The CLA assists the City Council, the City's governing body, in overseeing the operations of the City's housing agencies and departments and provides legislative advocacy for housing and community development initiatives. This involves conducting research and analysis on housing and community development projects, programs, policies, ordinances, and budgets proposed by City agencies and departments.

The CLA also assists the Council in the initiation and development of new housing policies and programs, and provides city departments with legislative information and advice, including information on developments pertaining to the Consolidated Plan grants.

The City Administrative Officer (CAO) is the chief administrative financial advisor to the Mayor and the Council and reports directly to both. The CAO conducts investigations, carries out research, and makes recommendations on a variety of City management matters. The CAO assists the Mayor and Council in the preparation of the City budget,

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 58 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaplans and directs its administration of the budget, and develops work programs and standards. In addition, the City Administrative Officer:

Conducts periodic management audits of City departments, Administers a risk management program, Chairs and participates on several coordinating committees, including the CDBG

Task Force; and Performs other duties as required by the Mayor or the City Council.

The CAO plays a major role in review of both the draft and final Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans, and prepares a transmittal to the Mayor and City Council outlining the fiscal and programmatic impact on the City of Consolidated Plan-funded programs.

BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENTThe Building and Safety Department enforces all ordinances and laws relating to the construction, alteration, repair, demolition, removal or relocation of buildings or structures as well as the installation, alteration, repair, use and operation of heating, plumbing, lighting, ventilation, refrigeration, electrical and mechanical appliances and equipment therein.

The Department also:

Enforces the zoning ordinance of the City; Provides a corrective program for the rehabilitation of substandard dwellings,

commercial structures, multifamily housing developments, hotels, schools, hospitals and places of public assembly;

Inspects residential property on request to determine its compliance with City code requirements

Participates in several interdepartmental programs funded through the CDBG program, PACE (Proactive Code Enforcement) and the FALCON (Focused Attack Linking Community Organizations and Neighborhoods)

The Pro-Active Code Enforcement (PACE) program, funded primarily through CDBG, is designed to actively seek out code violations within a targeted area to gain compliance and help revitalize that community, increase public safety, reduce crime, and enhance the economic growth and stability of the area. PACE strives to accomplish this goal by educating/empowering stakeholders to resolve Los Angeles Municipal Code building and safety violations voluntarily. When surveying neighborhoods, inspectors focus on violations that include graffiti, trash, abandoned autos, illegal signs, hazardous or illegal construction, illegal use, and substandard single family dwellings.

LADBS operates two CDBG-funded PACE programs:

A Citywide Team in low- to moderate-income areas defined by census tracts throughout the City; and

A Council District 1 PACE Team in low- to moderate- income areas defined by census tracts within the boundaries of Council District 1.

Typically, the PACE program receives a request from the Office of the Mayor, City Council Office, or Neighborhood Council to survey an area to identify Code violations related to visual blight. PACE conducts community outreach meetings prior to conducting survey

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 59 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiainspections to educate residents on the PACE program. Survey inspections are conducted utilizing a team approach between PACE and residents of the survey areas.

City inspectors issue Orders to Comply to property owners when voluntary compliance with City building codes cannot be obtained. PACE makes every effort to work with property owners to bring their property into compliance, including educating them on the availability of various City resources and community assistance available to mitigate Code violations. The priority for deployment of resources to gain compliance or mitigate a hazard is based on the severity of the violation(s) and the degree that life safety is threatened. For example, inspecting a vacant building will have a higher priority than overgrown vegetation.

OFFICE OF THE MAYORThe Mayor’s Office of Housing and Economic Development (MOHED) provides assistance to businesses through programs such as the:

Los Angeles Business Team (direct business support and liaison) Minority Business Opportunity and Sector Teams Los Angeles Office of International Trade

CITY COUNCIL OFFICESThrough field and central offices, the 15 Council offices address economic development by identifying district challenges and potential, drawing on resources to publicize beneficial programs, and working with individual businesses to provide access to financial resources, City permit processes and assist with infrastructure issues. Council offices are instrumental in identifying community development needs within the areas of the city represented.

LOS ANGELES HOMELESS SERVICES AUTHORITY (LAHSA)The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is an independent unit of local government (a Joint Powers Authority) created by the City and County of Los Angeles to provide leadership, advocacy, planning, and management of program funding within the Los Angeles Continuum of Care. LAHSA is governed by a ten-member Board of Commissioners, five of whom are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council, and one by each of the five County Supervisors.

LAHSA plays a key role in coordinating homeless programs between the City and County of Los Angeles, which is critical because each controls crucial financial and program resources. LAHSA also integrates its planning efforts in eight Service Planning Areas with nonprofit service providers, community residents, the business community, schools, law enforcement, and other local governments, such as the 85 cities (excluding Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena) within the County. Funds for homeless programs from the Consolidated Plan will be used to support various components of the Continuum of Care operated by nonprofit housing and service providers.

Several city departments and entities such as the Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles participate in carrying out the strategies to end homelessness. However, as the lead entity of the CoC, LAHSA will maintain a pivotal role in the implementation of these strategies.

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS - NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS - HOUSINGLos Angeles is fortunate to have many excellent, experienced affordable housing developers, both non-profit and profit-motivated firms, which develop, own and operate

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 60 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaaffordable housing developments serving a variety of resident needs. Other local organizations provide invaluable support and experience to local affordable housing issues, including the Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH), tenant and apartment owner groups, and legal services. Truly, LAHD could not accomplish its mission without such dedicated partners.

Programs operated by LAHD promote coordination between housing and social service agencies in a number of areas. Many of the housing developments financed by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund include childcare centers, community rooms and computer learning centers that facilitate after school tutoring programs, and other services provided by local agencies. All proposed affordable housing developments for persons with special needs must formally arrange for resident services with the appropriate local agencies.

In addition, LAHD collaborates with numerous nonprofit agencies that provide homeownership counseling. LAHD also works in partnership with more than a hundred mortgage lenders throughout the city to deliver its first-time homebuyer programs, and contracts with a variety of nonprofit agencies that perform outreach services to inform potential low-income clients about the availability of loan and grant assistance for rehabilitation of their homes or rental properties, and assist clients with preparation of loan and grant applications.

The HOPWA program is implemented by 30 different agencies that offer services and housing assistance to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. LAHD’s Lead Outreach Grant and Lead-based Paint Hazard Control Grants from HUD have paid for the services of several non-profit community-based organizations to educate residents of the City’s highest-risk neighborhoods about lead hazards. And LAHD’s lead-safe work practices program was developed together and continues to coordinate with the Healthy Homes Collaborative, which includes more than 40 local public and private organizations focused on children’s health issues.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROVIDERSSupportive Housing, the combination of housing with on-site social services, has been proven to be one of the most effective solutions to homelessness; the evidence shows that most who live in supportive housing are able to maintain permanent housing, reenter the workforce in greater numbers than their counterparts who reside in shelters, and use expensive public systems (i.e. emergency systems of care) far less then when they were homeless.

The value of supportive housing is the stability it provides for those transitioning out of homelessness, which is key to returning them to independent living. In this way, shelter beds are bypassed and the homeless individual or family moves directly to permanent supportive housing.

Through its Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP), Los Angeles is a participant in the nation’s leading approach to alleviating homelessness. The PSHP, administered by the LAHD, was created to: 1) increase the City’s supply of supportive housing, 2) reduce production time of PSH by integrating funding and service resources, 3) leverage new and underutilized State and County homelessness dollars, and 4) raise the design standards for PSH and contribute to local redevelopment efforts.

The PSHP is a partnership of City agencies: LAHD, HACLA, CRA/LA, and DWP. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) governs the administration of their initial

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 61 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiacontribution to the Program, as well as future allocations. Additionally, the LAHSA and County agencies will be involved in the provision of services to the housing produced.

Projects funded by the PSHP must: 1) have at least 40 units (or may be smaller if the project serves transition-aged youth); 2) serve chronically homeless adults, homeless adults, homeless transition-aged youth, chronically homeless families, homeless families, low-income single adults or families; 3) be located with the City of Los Angeles; any family units are to be located outside of Skid Row; and 5) the unit mix must: have at least 50% of the units for formerly homeless households, serve the chronically homeless with special needs (35% minimum, 60% maximum) in projects serving single adults, and market 25% of the units to eligible residents who reside in the neighborhood.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCEThere are six chambers that work closely with the city to provide business opportunities benefiting residents and business owners; Los Angeles, Boyle Heights, Lincoln Heights, Pacoima, and San Pedro.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCEEight Small Business Development Centers provide business/technical assistance in the areas of management training, business seminars, business plan development, information on industrial sites, labor supply, permits, taxation, financing resources, assistance to small minority and women owned business. The State of California and the U.S. Small Business Administration fund the Centers.

PRIVATE SECTOR

Residential LendersOne of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund’s most important features is its ability to draw in the investment of other public and private dollars into housing development in Los Angeles. Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) financed developments typically leverage nearly $4 from other sources for every $1 from the Trust Fund. Not only do banks and thrifts provide loans for a small portion of the development cost of new affordable housing, but they also purchase low income housing tax credits and participate in the City’s tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond issuances.

In addition, LAHD’s homebuyer assistance programs rely on the participation of mortgage lenders committed to serving first time homebuyers. Lenders provide the first mortgage; LAHD funds the downpayment assistance and the second mortgage. To ensure the most favorable terms for homebuyers, many of the lenders offer the tax exempt below-market financing provided by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA).

PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Community Development Financial Institutions FundThe Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, an agency of the U.S. Treasury, was created to expand the availability of credit, investment capital, and financial services in distressed urban and rural communities. The Fund was authorized by the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 as a bipartisan initiative. By stimulating the creation and expansion of diverse community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and by providing incentives to traditional banks and thrifts, the Fund’s investments work toward building private markets, creating healthy local tax revenues, and empowering residents.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 62 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe CDFI Fund provides relatively small infusions of capital to institutions that serve distressed communities and low-income individuals. The Fund’s activities leverage private-sector investments from banks, foundations, and other funding sources. Since the Fund’s creation, it has made more than $534 million in awards to community development organizations and financial institutions.

CDFI is a community-based lending institution that promotes community development, serves an investment area or targeted population; provides loans or development investments and development services; maintains accountability to residents; and are not an agency of government. There are several organizations within Los Angeles that are certified CDFIs, including:

Asian Pacific Revolving Loan Fund

California Capital Alliance Century Community Development Inc.

Community Commerce Bank Community Financial Resource Center (CFRC)

Comunidades Federal Credit Union Enterprise Community Partners (formerly known as Enterprise Foundation)

Episcopal Community Federal Credit Union (in application status) FAME Assistance Corporation/FAME Renaissance Equity Fund

Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Los Angeles LDC

NHS Neighborhood Lending Services Pacific Coast Regional Small Business Development Corporation

TELACU Community Capital Valley Economic Development Center

Los Angeles Industrial Development AuthorityEconomic Development efforts in Los Angeles have been greatly strengthened and CDBG funds leveraged through the Los Angeles Industrial Development Authority (IDA), an appointed commission that administers the city’s Industrial Development Bond (IDB) program. The IDA is administered by the Community Development Department, Economic Development Division.

The IDA was established in 1982 to provide tax-exempt financing in the form of Industrial Development Bonds and Empowerment Zone Bonds (IDB/EZB) for manufacturing and processing activities within the City of Los Angeles. The enables bonds to be issued with a tax-exempt status, but does not pledge City funds to repay the bond issues.

IDA bonds are offered as an incentive to companies involved in manufacturing and processing activities, Empowerment Zone operations and non-profit organizations to relocate to Los Angeles, or remain and expand in the City, thereby creating and retaining jobs, promoting economic revitalization, and providing much needed public and community services.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 63 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaSince its inception, the IDA has directly issued or facilitated over $2.3 billion in bond issues. The IDA works closely with a team of qualified financial professionals whose goal is to process bonds in a timely, accurate and cost-effective manner.

The IDA also provides bonds for non-profit organizations to assist in the construction of new buildings, museums, hospitals, schools, etc.

Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) offer both taxable and tax-exempt financing for commercial and industrial development projects at favorable rates usually below conventional financing. IDBs are used for:

Property acquisition Equipment purchases Building improvements; and Construction

Tax-exempt issues are restricted to manufacturing concerns. Jobs are created at a ratio of 1 job per $50,000 investment.

Bond issues may range from $1,000,000 to $40,000,000, while tax-exempt bond issues are limited to $10,000,000. Maximum financing participation is 75% of the project cost, or the appraised value of the underlying property. A single bond issue may include both construction and permanent financing. Terms range from 10-20 years, amortized over 25 years. Collateral normally consists of the project real estate.

The IDA also has a loan assistance program, the Subordinate Loans Revolving Special Fund, which may be able to bridge a financing gap. A single bond issue may include both construction and permanent financing. Terms range from 10 to 20 years, amortized over 30 years. Capital interest only periods are permitted. Collateral normally consists of the project’s underlying real estate.

Advantages of IDA IssuanceBonds benefit the borrower, the investors and the communities in which the projects are located. And, due to the tax-exempt status of bonds, investors benefit from the tax-free interest earnings received from the bonds. The interest income may be lower than other investments, but the tax savings may offset the difference.

The renovation of abandoned and deteriorating buildings, as well as the development of underutilized land revitalizes the surrounding community. The growth in business resulting from bond proceeds allow for the creation of jobs that are usually filled by local residents.

Over the past ten years, the "all-in" interest rate has averaged approximately 4.65%. During this same period, the bond interest rate was as low as 2.8% and the commercial interest rate indicators have consistently been higher than the tax-exempt interest rates.Bonds typically reduce financing costs by 20% - 30% annually. In many cases these savings allow companies to purchase their leased facility or acquire a new property, allowing them to expand and increase the capacity of their operations.

COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD (COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY)The member board consists of representatives of the poverty section, public sector and the private sector. The board provides oversight to all antipoverty programs funded with

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 64 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCDBG (public service funds only) and CSBG. The CAB functions as an advisory group to Mayor and Council.

The CAB provides for broad community input in grant-funded public services programming, and deliberates priorities and plans for human services delivery system programs and related proposals and funding. Its recommendations are submitted to the Mayor and City Council.

Coordination with the CAB is assured by the Workforce Investment Board’s membership on the Community Action Board and ongoing efforts to share information and link job training, human services and all self-sufficiency programs in our area.

CITIZEN’S UNIT FOR PARTICIPATION (CUP)CUP is the City of Los Angeles's Citizens’ Unit for Participation in Housing and Community Development. The Board is charged with representing the interests of the people of the City in directing federal housing and community development funds for The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). One person from each Council District is appointed by his or her local Council Member to make recommendations based on input from the community. Other members represent the Mayor and the Los Angeles Housing Authority.

The CUP Board, in accordance with HUD requirements, actively seeks community input -- citizen participation -- on a regular basis. With a charter to address the current needs of the Los Angeles community, CUP provides critical information to decision-makers. CUP members are vitally involved in their communities and are in active contact with citizens in their own districts. CUP in 2002 directed preparation of a Citizen Needs Survey, the recommendations of which were reviewed by the Mayor and Council, and influenced the priorities and strategies for housing and community development expenditures through the Consolidated Plan. CUP also reviews Substantial Amendments to the adopted Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans.

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (BPW)/TRANSPORTATION (DOT) DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER (DPW)These City departments improve and maintain infrastructure in areas such as City water, power, sewers, storm drains, streets, lighting, and transportation. In addition, the Department of Water and Power offers incentives for businesses to locate in business incentive zones, and infrastructure financing programs.

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Beyond Shelter and other Continuum of Care (CoC) agencies Concerned Citizens of South Los Angeles FAME Renaissance (Economic Development Corporation) Grant A.M.E. Housing Development Corporation League of Women Voters Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Los Angeles Urban League United Auto Workers

LISC is a critical resource in the training and certification of Community Development Corporations within Los Angeles.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 65 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California United Latino Fund (ULF)

The ULF annually awards grants of up to $5,000 to organizations that further the social, educational, economic and employment training, and cultural needs of Latinos in Los Angeles.

2. Please describe strengths and gaps in the institutional structure

There are over eighty separate governments within Los Angeles County, not including special districts. The institutional structure of Los Angeles City government has been established for many years, but the 2001 charter election shifted the balance of power towards the executive branch, and provided for more representation of residents at the local level through establishment of neighborhood councils.

HUD, as well as residents, has an understandable interest in assuring the implementation of Consolidated Plan programs are not hindered by institutional factors, both external and internal; and the city is required to identify these factors, and provide information on progress in solving them.

In the 2000-2003 Consolidated Plan, the City identified several weaknesses in the institutional structure that constrains successful implementation of the Consolidated Plan. Many of these factors will still be in evidence over the next five years, but with the City’s full intent to address them.

Gaps in the institutional structure for the preservation and production of affordable housing result more from funding limitations and the overwhelming need in Los Angeles, than from anything else. The Mayor’s Housing Coordinating Team has identified inefficiencies affecting the affordable housing development process and will be proposing a variety of means to address those issues.

External Barriers to Full Institutional GrowthThere are many external barriers that affect the full institutional growth of the City of Los Angeles in a number of areas.

Geographic and Demographic FactorsSeveral barriers include the sheer size, ethnic and racial diversity and population of the City of Los Angeles, coupled with high rates of immigration and accompanying poverty. The constant influx of immigrants into City service areas makes it difficult to verify client residency and income eligibility. Federal, state and local funds are limited, and must be used in the most effective manner possible.

Overcoming Language BarriersIt is estimated that over 140 languages and dialects are spoken in the City and nearly 100 in the city’s schools. English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are often oversubscribed, and social service providers are overtaxed by translation requirements. Many low-income residents are discouraged from seeking needed services by language barriers.

Gaps in Private Sector InvestmentThere are several conditions that limit private sector investment in distressed areas of Los Angeles, affecting the city’s ability to successfully leverage Consolidated Plan funds for needed economic development projects. Some of the barriers include the

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 66 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaextent of blight, time, the cost of assembling and clearing sites, obsolete infrastructure, cost of development in relation to risks, and incompatible land uses. Affordable housing subsidies are steep, and public/private housing development deals are often complex and tied to other developer priorities.

The City has recently seen successful development of retail and mixed-use projects. Such projects provide needed jobs and services for Los Angeles residents.

A major threat to the provision of affordable housing is the continuing trend by landlords to “opt out” of the Project-based Section 8 program. The Housing Authority, however, has reported a reduction in Tenant-based Section 8 voucher turnover and the volume of owners discontinuing participation in the tenant based Section 8 program is significantly lower than in the past two years.

Gaps in Public Sector Participation and Collaboration The capacity of agencies, especially smaller grass roots contractors to provide services declines with each reduction in grant funding. Reduced city funding means reduced agency funding, fewer agency activities, and fewer staff. Turnover of staff in local organizations creates the need for continual training to assure that programs are managed properly and comply with federal, state and local regulations. The turnover gap is a major impediment to the stability of local program management.

One solution lies in the city working more closely with the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and local development corporations, such as FAME Renaissance, Valley Economic Development Corporation, and Concerned Citizens of Los Angeles. This will encourage development of even firmer partnerships between such organizations and city departments in shaping programs and implementation strategies.

Educational institutions, such as the schools of public policy at UCLA, USC, the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola University, the Pat Brown Institute at California State University, Los Angeles, Occidental College, can provide immensely valuable technical assistance and perspectives into development of more effective, targeted community development programs and building linkages among the private and public sectors.

The Need for Increased Citizen ParticipationThere is generally low level of citizen participation and involvement in deciding the allocation of Consolidated Plan grant funds, demonstrated by low attendance at advisory councils, standing committees, neighborhood advisory boards, community meetings, and, generally, at city council and committee meetings. This is indicative that the City must work harder to encourage involve citizens to be involved in the housing and community development process to a far greater extent than is the case now. The new Neighborhood Councils show much promise as a way to encourage citizen involvement in the Consolidated Planning process.

Strengths and Gaps in the Structure of Homeless ActivitiesThe Los Angeles Continuum of Care (LACoC) comprises all of Los Angeles County with the exceptions of the cities of Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena. It includes 85 incorporated cities, 34 of which are entitlement cities, and is segmented into eight regional "Service Planning Areas" (SPAs) that are used for planning most mainstream social services. Due to size, geography, multitude of political jurisdictions, diverse homeless

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 67 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiapopulations, and complicated overlapping network of agencies and programs, LAHSA faces significant challenges in bringing stakeholders together to create common goals and action steps that will result in ending chronic homelessness.

StrengthsThe Los Angeles CoC continues to implement the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). In an innovative approach to solving homelessness, four separate continua of care (Los Angeles, Glendale, Pasadena and Orange County) have joined together, using the same HMIS software system. This regional collaborative approach is vital in combating homelessness since homeless persons intermittently access services in all these areas. The four continua have agreed to share basic client intake information, and are able to follow clients from area to area as they access services. The data sharing enables providers to shorten the time required for intake assessments, which can allow them to serve more clients. It also provides for more continuity in tracking homelessness throughout the Southern California region. Overall, the collaborative approach provides a platform for sharing data, generating regional reports that are critical to understanding trends and crafting solutions to end homelessness on a regional level.

Since the data is collected on a web-based system, the Continuum of Care will have access to real-time data that tracks service usage and outcomes in the homeless service delivery system upon full system implementation. Specifically, the system is designed around an outcomes-based framework, which emphasizes results rather than activities. In so doing, it provides numerous advantages for service providers and funding sources. Some of the benefits include:

The ability to detect the need for course-correction in real time throughout the implementation of the program;

Immediate feedback on program success to key stakeholders such as funding sources, board members, staff and clients; and

Early evidence of program effectiveness that can be used to help build a rationale for continued program funding.

With immediate access to data that is uniformly collected, both LAHSA and the service providers will be able to generate reports from the system at any time during the program year. Data collected will be analyzed by LAHSA’s contract monitoring staff and used as a basis to relay concerns and recommendations to the agencies. This will enable the agencies to review their programs and determine areas that need to be addressed immediately in order to achieve the outcomes set forth in their contracts.

Through HMIS, LAHSA will be able to collect demographic and outcome data that are critical for planning, designing and funding effective homeless programs. When fully implemented, HMIS will also facilitate the enumeration of homeless persons because it is designed to provide an unduplicated count of homeless persons accessing the service delivery system.

Gaps Although significant progress has been made in many of the sub-jurisdictions within the Continuum to end homelessness in the Los Angeles Continuum of Care, there are geographic areas within the Continuum where only limited planning has been completed in developing functional or operational plans. The size and diversity of the Continuum has resulted in a strategy of developing regional implementation plans that are tailored to address specific community/regional issues and needs. LAHSA is currently working to

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 68 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiadocument existing plans, and to engage areas still needing plans in 2008. Additionally, LAHSA is actively participating in planning activities with other city departments and jurisdictions in the LA Continuum. One major planning accomplishment includes the Los Angeles City Mayor’s Housing Plan which will call for:

Creating additional permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless over the next five years;

Coordinating housing departments to move more families into Section 8 housing in five years;

Completing a citywide strategy for funding and locating homeless shelters by December 2008; and

Completing a Skid Row Vision and Action Plan.

Working to adopt inclusionary zoning for affordable housing projects.

The Non-Profit and For-Profit Community – A Significant Source of StrengthThere are also many non-profit and for-profit organizations in Los Angeles that work together collaboratively in the areas of housing, homeless services, community and economic development, and have been successful in development of coherent and effective human services programs throughout the city. Los Angeles in turn has developed strong institutional links with these entities in jointly undertaking vitally needed community development activities.

One of the biggest challenges facing the City is the difficult task of forming and maintaining active collaboratives in furthering community development goals. A majority of federal funding sources now require that such collaboratives be in place, funding and in-kind commitments established, and linkages fully developed as a condition of funding as preconditions for application and award of federal grant funds.

Another challenge in development of a strong institutional structure and avoiding service gaps is the sheer size and extent of need in the City. Consolidated Plan resources are insufficient to fill the gap, and nonprofit organizations cannot either. However, despite these limitations, The City, working with for-profit and non-profit organizations, has enjoyed several notable successes in bridging institutional barriers and intelligently targeting scarce federal funds.

Other examples of the City’s collaboratives include:

The Workforce Development Division of CDD has established close linkages among employment and training programs, through joint participation with the Los Angeles County Department of Public and Social Services (DPSS), the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the State of California Employment Development Department. The U.S. Department of Labor, local governments, and both private and nonprofit providers of employment and training programs also play an active role. Active collaboratives, such as UNITE LA, have been in existence for several years.

The Human Services and Family Development Division of CDD has transitioned from a “single component” service provision to a consortium-based model approach composed of Family Development Networks (FDNs). This structure has resulted in high participation in problem solving and service delivery strategies by the non-profit community, as well as local, state and federal agencies. The FDN is

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 69 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiadesigned to link to the City’s Workforce Development Centers by closely coordinating intake, electronic interface, staff training, information and referral, and case management support. The FDN complement the Centers by providing supportive services such as counseling, parenting skills, childcare access, and alternative youth services.

Proposed Eligibility Plan (PEP)A significant hurdle has been in development of a comprehensive grants management system City Wide that ensures compliance with Consolidated Plan and OMB regulations. The sheer size and complexity of City government and the multitude of specialized regulations for each of the Consolidated Plan programs results in ineffective use of various contract boilerplates to suit specialized grant needs, which made the task of compliance with the most basic requirements of HUD federal assistance programs difficult.

The Proposed Eligibility Plan (PEP) was designed to address these constraints on efficient and effective Consolidated Plan program implementation.

The PEP is an important inducement to strengthening the city’s grants management and overall institutional structure, as it strengthens formal agreements between departments in the form of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and Memoranda of Agreement (MOA). City departments must prepare a schedule of projected reimbursement through the four Consolidated Plan grants, and identify all sources of leveraging; cross-cutting federal requirements such as the National Environmental Policy Act (Part 58) and the Davis-Bacon Wage Rate regulations are required review elements for the PEP.

Implementing departments must provide a determination of eligibility and National Objective for PEPs submitted for CDBG reimbursement. Often, CDD staff processing PEPs will visit the site of a proposed project to obtain a better sense of eligibility and scope. In many senses, then, the PEP has become a useful remote monitoring tool.

The information derived from implementing departments’ response to these PEP requirements directly link to the CAPER, and provide a baseline for verification of information contained therein.

The City has also adopted a procedure to assure prompt and accurate reconciliation of reprogrammed Consolidated Plan funds with City grant accounting records. Each month, CDD Administrative Services receives an Expenditure Report from the CDD Financial Management Division and project and programs are carefully monitored for timeliness of expenditure.

The Computer Systems Division of CDD has successfully created an automated tracking system which provides the status of all PEPs submitted, provides information on completeness or missing information, and for implementing departments that are tardy in submitting PEPs, a reminder is sent to them. The PEPs are also integrated into CDD’s Contract Tracking System (CTS) which better allows contracts staff to determine if an approved PEP is on file.

Survey of the Extent of Need in the City of Los AngelesThe City’s institutional analysis for the 2008-2013 Consolidated Plan reveals that the City must develop formal, systematic approaches to determine the extent of need throughout the City, with a significant assist from technology. Although the high incidence of povertyis well documented, it is not completely known whether the extent of poverty is being met

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 70 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiawith Consolidated Plan programs now in place or planned, especially in the absence of a periodic City Wide evaluation of program effectiveness.

Fulfillment of this goal will be a significant impetus in strengthening the institutional structure of the city and related agencies. Further development of the City’s ISIS system mentioned earlier, will result in a comprehensive database of need, and will encourage sharing of client and demographic information electronically throughout the City.

This has been a significant investment in information technology that will prove to be a useful tool in ensuring that City residents in need receive appropriate, high quality human services. The City ‘311’ system, for example, is proving to be an extremely important tool for providing information to residents and businesses.

Regional Needs The need for home-grown, “ground up” regional approaches and strategies to area wide problems of poverty, affordable housing, movement of persons from welfare to work, and other issues that span a geographic area larger than the city. Lack of comprehensive regional planning is a significant institutional barrier affecting the ability to respond to new challenges and needs.

There has been considerable progress on this issue in the last few years, particularly in integration of human services, Welfare-to-Work and Employment and Training programs. The recent integration of the Rapid Response Unit, linking the program framework of CDD’s Economic Development Division and the Workforce Development Division is a significant institutional innovation that will permit faster and more comprehensive assistance to persons needing employment assistance.

2. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system.

The City has scores of non-profit agencies serving a multitude of human service needs. The degree of involvement and cooperation among the City and the non-profit community is high. The City’s delivery system, while decentralized has the advantage of flexibility in terms of changing priorities. The City also benefits from the presence of the Los Angeles County service delivery system, which strongly augments the efforts of the City through its subrecipients and contractors of federal Consolidated Plan funds. However, none of the delivery systems are adequately funded to meet the demand for services. A good example of a major strength in the City’s system of delivery of services lies in CDD’s Economic Development Division approach. EDD has a strong knowledge of what the City’s needs are, and where the gaps lie. With the completion of the Economic Development Strategy, EDD has taken a major step towards the implementation of economic development strategies that will address the City’s needs and priorities that will eliminate barriers towards wealthier communities, the creation of quality jobs for low and moderate persons, a labor force that is more productive, developing more entrepreneurs and assisting small businesses grow and mature.

The major gap in EDD’s delivery system is the ability to reach out to all the businesses in need of public assistance. Performance measures have been developed and implemented to ensure better quality of the services being delivered and to service a greater number of businesses that need technical assistance.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 71 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Los Angeles Housing DepartmentPrograms operated by LAHD promote coordination between housing developers – both for and non-profit - and social service agencies in a number of areas. Many of the housing developments financed by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund include childcare centers, community rooms and computer learning centers that facilitate after school tutoring programs, and other services provided by local agencies.

All proposed permanent supportive housing developments and other affordable housing proposed for persons with special needs must show memoranda of understanding (MOU) or similar commitments with local social service agencies. Depending on the population served, case managers and other agency staff may work at the housing development site.

In addition, the Housing Department collaborates with numerous nonprofit agencies that provide homeownership counseling. All prospective homebuyers who work with the Housing Department are required to complete a minimum of 8 hours of homeownership counseling in order to access our purchase assistance program. LAHD also works in partnership with more than a hundred mortgage lenders throughout the city to deliver its first-time homebuyer programs.

The Housing Department also extensively uses the services of a variety of nonprofit agencies that perform outreach services to inform potential low-income clients about the availability of loan and grant assistance for rehabilitation of their homes or rental properties. Currently, eight agencies act as a conduit for rehabilitation loans from the Housing Department: those agencies do initial eligibility screening, perform feasibility analyses, estimated necessary loan amounts, and generate loan documents for Housing Department approval and funding.

The HOPWA program provides funding for a number of agencies that offer services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. LAHD’s Lead Outreach Grant from HUD pays for the services of several non-profit community-based organizations to educate residents of the City’s highest-risk neighborhoods about lead-based paint hazards. And LAHD’s lead-safe work practices program was developed together and coordinates with the Healthy Homes Collaborative, which includes more than 40 local public and private organizations focused on children’s health issues.

3. Assess the strengths and gaps in the delivery system for public housing, including a description of the organizational relationship between the jurisdiction and the public housing agency, including the appointing authority for the commissioners or board of housing agency, relationship regarding hiring, contracting and procurement; provision of services funded by the jurisdiction; review by the jurisdiction of proposed capital improvements as well as proposed development, demolition or disposition of public housing developments.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) manages over 60 Public Housing locations (large developments, scattered family and senior housing sites) with more than 7,400 housing units. HACLA also oversees the management of smaller family, senior Section 8 New Construction and other affordable and market rate properties. This brings the total number of units provided to low-income families and individuals throughout Los Angeles to 9,080, ranging from San Pedro to the San Fernando Valley and from Mar Vista to the City’s Eastside. The Section 8 program, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides rental housing assistance to extremely

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 72 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californialow and very low-income families, senior citizens, and disabled persons.  Its objective is to provide affordable, decent and safe housing for eligible families, while increasing a family’s residential mobility and choice.  HACLA, a state chartered public housing agency since 1938, now administers the second largest Section 8 program in the country.

The Housing Authority has two different types of rental subsidies—tenant-based and project-based programs. Both programs have similar income-based admission requirements set by HUD.  Households with a tenant-based subsidy have a voucher that allows them to move from one place to another.  Those in the project-based programs live in a building in which the units are subsidized.  If a tenant moves from the building, they lose their rental subsidy.  Generally, those in the project-based programs and some tenant-based programs for special populations are referred by various agencies and building owners to the Housing Authority, which confirms they meet all the Section 8 eligibility requirements. Households on the Housing Voucher tenant-based program come from the Housing Authority’s waiting list of applicants.  As of September 2007, HACLA has funding for 51,660 units assisting about 100,000 total family members.

Over the years, HACLA has offered a variety of specialized Section 8 programs to eligible households.  The different programs currently being administered by the Section 8 Division each have different eligibility requirements and each target various segments of low income households such as persons with AIDS and homeless individuals.  The Housing Authority works with other government agencies to deliver support services to Section 8 clients.

HACLA’s funding is from five main sources: Rent payments by public housing residents, HUD’s annual operating subsidy, HUD’s annual Capital Fund for the repair of old housing stock, Section 8 administrative fees and other program and capital grants from various sources. HUD funding for HACLA operating expenses is limited and declining. Meanwhile, needs continue to increase. Not only is HACLA required to maintain an aging housing stock mostly over 50 years old, but we must also provide a range of supportive services for residents to help them progress toward economic self-sufficiency, and comply with complex regulatory requirements.

In the recent past, HACLA has been able to creatively patch together funds from various sources, including the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP), public housing operating subsidy, and surplus Section 8 administrative fees, to bridge this gap between needs and resources. HACLA has used these resources to help pay the costs of resident services, but these options are no longer available.

The ending of PHDEP eliminated a key source of funds for resident programs as well as contributed to the closure of our Public Safety department. Recent legislation imposed strict limits on the use of (reduced) Section 8 funds that prohibit us from using these funds to pay for public housing resident services and community initiatives. The new public housing operating subsidy formula could result in a substantial loss of federal support for HACLA. Given these circumstances, it is safe to conclude the funding outlook is not promising.

HACLA answers to three distinct layers of governmental oversight. It receives federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which sets the operating rules. California state law sets forth governing conditions for public housing to which HACLA must adhere. And the Mayor of Los Angeles appoints the seven-member Board of Commissioners overseeing the agency, subject to confirmation by the City

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 73 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCouncil. The Board sets HACLA policy, appoints the Executive Director and works to ensure the agency meets its basic goal of providing decent, safe and sanitary housing for low-income families. In the past several years, HACLA’s mission has evolved beyond this to encompass a variety of education, training and service programs designed to encourage resident economic self-sufficiency and improve their quality of life.

The City of Los Angeles reviews all proposed HACLA development sites through the City Council, the City Planning Commission, and the Department of Building and Safety. The Comprehensive Plan of the HACLA is incorporated into the HACLA budget process. Both the Board of Commissioners and HUD must approve the HACLA budget.

Monitoring (91.230)

1. Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor its housing and community development projects and ensure long-term compliance with program requirements and comprehensive planning requirements.

Both CDD and LAHD, as the primary City departments implementing the Consolidated Plan grants, conduct financial and programmatic monitoring annually in addition to the annual OMB A-133 (Single Audit), as well as periodic Controller audits. The monitoring process used by the two departments varies based on the type of program administered; each of the Consolidated Plan grant have a separate and distinct regulations and requirements. However, both systems are designed to incorporate a variety of monitoring techniques and approaches in a coordinated effort to assure that all funded activities receive an appropriate level of review, and that regulations specific to the Entitlement grants received are followed.

The vast majority of the City’s Consolidated Plan-funded programs and project activities involve direct services to low- and moderate-income clients. This made it imperative that City departments and related City agencies develop monitoring procedures that will ensure that activities meet HUD regulatory requirements. This is particularly true of the CDBG program. Recipients of CDBG funds must demonstrate that they are continuing to meet both a National Objective and CDBG eligibility requirements. Recipients must also ensure that subrecipients (or subcontractors) are monitored in a consistent and regular manner and that contract goals and terms are adhered to. The following narratives illustrate the approaches used by several City departments in monitoring Consolidated Plan-funded programs and project activities.

The CDD Administrative Services Division (ASD) Grants Unit reviews all applications for CDBG funding for adherence to CDBG regulatory requirements. Staff frequently consults with City departments and agencies on eligibility and national objective issues, and provides technical assistance to City departments and related City agencies and non-profit organizations in assuring that approved project activities continue to meet HUD CDBG statutory and regulatory requirements. Funding and eligibility recommendations are provided by CDD, Grants Section to the Mayor upon review of all proposed projects.

Other Consolidated Plan-funded entities (such as LAHSA) that administer grants provide a similarly strict initial review of applications for funding. A standing committee of the City Council (Housing, Community and Economic Development) also reviews ConPlan funding requests. CDD grants staff also reviews proposed CDBG programs and projects for

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 74 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiareadiness, to further assure that activities are begun and completed in a timely manner – thereby assuring timely expenditure of CDBG funds.

In addition, the City Controller’s Office and the City Administrative Officer (CAO) conduct in-depth audits and performance reviews of federal grant programs. Since the City has two departments responsible for the five grants, each department’s approach will be discussed separately.

CDD is responsible for monitoring part of the CDBG grant, and those actions of four key operating divisions - ICD, HSFD, NDD, and WDD, which administer third party contracts for CDBG. All four divisions use a Request for Proposal process to identify contractors.

Monitoring of Human Services ProgramsThe Human Services and Family Development (HSFD) Division of the Community Development Department (CDD) administers several key CDBG-funded programs, including the Human Services Delivery System, the Domestic Violence Shelter Operations program, and the Rita Walters Learning Complex, among others. In most instances, nonprofit contractors operating these programs are selected through a competitive Request for Proposal process to ensure that contractors have the capacity to properly administer federal grant funds and the organizational capacity to deliver effective services.

The CDD Human Services and Family Development (HSFD) Division monitors projects through regular field visits. Each project receives four on-site visits in a twelve-month program year. As part of this regular monitoring process, the City evaluates service providers’ compliance with record keeping, financial management, and the reporting requirements of their contracts. Project progress is also evaluated against agency goals. When problems arise, corrective action plans are initiated. Should improvements not materialize, the City exercises its contractual options to safeguard the expenditure of funds. Project activities are also monitored through review and audit of cash requests from funded agencies.

HSFD program analysts are available on an “as-needed” basis to provide technical assistance to contractors regarding issues such as federal grant requirements, City contract requirements and reporting results of program accomplishments. The HSFD continues to move toward performance-based contract monitoring procedures and is working to redesign the compliance review documents used to better track contractor performance in key areas. Over the past two years, the Financial Management Division (FMD) of the CDD implemented a standard risk assessment (rating) tool to document fiscal performance of all Department contractors.

The HSFD Division is now undertaking a review of all monitoring procedures to go beyond compliance monitoring toward a more comprehensive program evaluation. Planned improvements include more site visits (including evening and weekend visits as appropriate) to determine how actively engaged clients are in the program activities; and using elements of Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) to measure program effectiveness and assessment of how HSFD staff can provide more effective technical assistance, to ensure that program activities--not paperwork--take precedence at point of service delivery.

Determination of CDBG Eligibility and National Objective Compliance

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 75 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaUpon completion of the Consolidated Plan application submission cycle in the late summer or early fall of each year, the Grants Section of the Administrative Services Division of CDD receives and reviews projects through the Consolidated Plan Application System to determine compliance with CDBG eligibility and National Objective requirements, as well as determine if proposed programs and project activities are “ready to go” – that is, that CDBG funds can be expended within one program year. CDD staff provides the first level of review and coordinates closely with City departments, nonprofit organizations, and related City agencies in assuring that CDBG eligibility and national objective requirements are met. A critical level of review at this point is also whether a proposed program or project activity is expressly ineligible under the CDBG regulations.

CDD also closely scrutinizes continued compliance with the assigned National Objective through PEP review, field and desk monitoring, and periodic analyses of program and project progress and undisbursed Line of Credit balance. CDD also prepares the annual Grantee Performance Report (GPR) which details expenditure and completion status for all years of approved CDBG-funded project activities. HUD uses the GPR extensively to monitor progress.

Slow-moving or completed projects are given particular attention for potential reprogramming of CDBG funds. The City has been successful in maintaining an allowable undisbursed balance in its Line of Credit.

Use of the PEP as a Remote Monitoring ToolThe PEP, explained earlier, has undergone several enhancements this year, and has undergone review by both the City Attorney and the Los Angeles office of HUD to determine if the PEP has the same effect as an MOU in assuring compliance with HUD regulatory requirements for the four grants. Its usefulness as a monitoring and compliance tool to ensure adherence to Consolidated Plan and individual grant regulations is becoming more and more evident, as its use is expanding to Section 108 loan guarantee, and UDAG program income. The PEP is also used for review and disposition of both minor (technical corrections) and substantial amendments (as defined by the HUD Consolidated Plan regulations) to the annual Action Plan approved projects.

Specific CDD divisions have monitoring procedures in place tailored to the types of programs and project activities undertaken, and the documentation and audit requirements imposed by HUD, OMB and other federal, state, and local requirements

For example, the Economic Development Division (EDD) of CDD has policies and procedures that program monitors follow to conduct semi-yearly site visits of the agencies we partner with for the delivery of economic development activities. Our contracts contain specific goals the partner agencies are responsible for achieving during the terms of the agreement. We have also implemented quarterly meetings to review agency performance and their plan of action for the next quarter. EDD also requires verification of income for all participants requesting services and case management to ensure positive progress is being made.

Monitoring of Housing Programs

Monitoring Procedures for Affordable Housing Units - LAHDAffordable housing developments assisted with Consolidated Plan grant funds are monitored in two phases: during construction and afterwards, when the property is occupied by low income residents. Before any funds can be released, loan agreements and related documents must be signed by the Borrower and approved by the City.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 76 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaBesides repayment terms, the promissory note, and loan agreement, the City contract may include additional terms agreed to by the borrower, including requirements related to habitability standards, owner residency, tenant eligibility, and/or rent affordability guidelines.

Low-income tenancy and affordable rents are effectuated through a covenant, which is signed by the owner, recorded against the property title, so it ‘runs with the land’. Covenants have provisions that require annual tenant re-certification and periodic physical inspections when required by the grant. These additional provisions are no less important than the repayment terms, and a material breach thereof may result in acceleration of the loan and/or foreclosure action against the collateral property.

The development cycle begins with the LAHD commitment, and ultimately culminates into a finished housing development. Typically, the development cycle is 30 to 36 months as-suming all goes as planned. LAHD utilizes certain milestones as indicators to determine if the project is on track, within the development cycle described above.

Those milestones include, but are not limited to the following:

Award of leveraged financing sources (tax credit allocation, MHP award or 202/811 HUD Award). As a requirement of the LAHD commitment, each prospective borrower must immediately apply for an award of subsidy from one of the three aforementioned sources and be in receipt of an award not greater than one year after the LAHD commitment is obtained.

Project Readiness within 90 – 120 days of receipt of leveraged financing source as demonstrated by receipt of a building permit, an executed construction contract, complete set of plans and building specifications.

Start of Construction as demonstrated by the developer’s issuance of a Notice to Proceed.

Construction Schedule (generally from 12 – 18 months depending upon the extent of construction, size of building and other building criteria.)

Construction Completion as evidenced by a Notice of Completion, Final Building Sign off by the City’s Department of Building and Safety, or a Certificate of Occupancy.

Marketing and Lease-Up (generally a three- to six-month process)

These milestones are defined in LAHD’s loan agreements, and are monitored by both the Finance Officers and Rehabilitation Construction Specialist from application intake, throughout predevelopment and during the course of construction.

The construction phase is monitored by LAHD Construction Specialists. They perform inspections at each milestone of the process; their approval is required before funds can be released. The City’s Building and Safety Department also plays a role in this process, as it will not issue building permits unless all code requirements have been met.

After construction, the Occupancy Monitoring section of LAHD takes over the monitoring responsibility as it checks for the required occupancy ratios, and also determines if clients meet income requirements. Compliance monitoring is accomplished through the regular monitoring of a borrower-provided management plan. Owners must provide LAHD with reports on the current tenants and the rent schedule. These are reviewed for compliance by LAHD staff.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 77 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaHousing developments of five or more units receive annual site visits to confirm written reports and to verify the continued maintenance of the building. In addition, LAHD may randomly audit the property owner's financial, tenant and maintenance records to verify compliance with the management plan.

When HUD issues revised income or maximum rent levels, all property owners are notified of the changes by the Occupancy Monitoring section. LAHD maintains a listing of all assisted properties with covenant restrictions.

The LAHD has built numerous key partnerships with City and State agencies that serve the same or provide similar services to the program’s target population. Coordination and outreach with these development partners has created efficiencies in the following ways:

Coordination of Bi-Annual Reporting Identification of Key Housing Developments Avoid Duplication of Efforts

The following is an abbreviated list of organizations which partner with LAHD:

Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) Community Development Commission for the County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)

Occupancy Monitoring

LAHD’s Occupancy Monitoring section is responsible for monitoring property owner compliance with regulations, recorded regulatory agreements, and covenants associated with affordable housing. The Section monitors properties funded through LAHD with federal funds, properties funded with LAHD-issued tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, and properties developed with land use concessions available under the Planning Department’s Affordable Housing Incentives Program or properties subject to Mello Act affordable housing set-asides. Monitoring activities include review of owner compliance with tenant income and rent ceilings as well as ensuring adherence to any underlying federal regulations, such as HUD Housing Quality Standards.

The responsibilities of LAHD’s Occupancy Monitoring section have grown over time: the Section now processes approximately 200 new land use covenants per year and is responsible for monitoring some 18,000 units annually. The Department now has a contractor, chosen via a competitive process, to manage a significant portion of the on-going monitoring function.

In-house staff remains responsible for monitoring the Urban Futures contract, for working with the City Attorney’s office to generate covenants and regulatory agreements, for calculating and publishing appropriate rent levels, sales prices, and income limits, and for responding to numerous daily inquiries about the regulations and requirements.

Portfolio Management

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 78 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaLAHD makes loans to qualified developers and owners of single family and multi-family residential properties to build or rehabilitate housing or to assist households with the purchase of their first home. The Portfolio Management Section is charged with servicing all of LAHD’s loans.

Depending upon loan repayment terms and conditions, servicing is required for a period of two to fifty-five years. In addition to collecting loan payments, loan servicing also involves the analysis of the borrowers’ requests to: (1) allow new loans to become senior to the City’s loans to facilitate refinancing activities (subordination agreements); (2) change repayment terms (amendments); and (3) allow a smaller pay-off to avoid a complete loss by threatened third-party foreclosure (short-pay).

Additional services are provided in cases where the loan is affected by borrower bankruptcy, death (probate cases), or third-party foreclosure. Moreover, Portfolio Management includes loss mitigation activities, which are essential to preserving LAHD’s stream of program income. Program Income derived from loan repayments is used to fund additional housing, economic development, social services, public facilities and related administrative costs.

HOME Grant MonitoringIn addition to adhering to CDBG regulations, and administering the HOPWA and ESG programs, LAHD is the administrator of the HOME program. As described above, LAHD follows monitoring standards and procedures to review and fund affordable housing developments to ensure compliance with HUD’s program regulations. Here are a few procedures that ensure specific HOME-program requirements:

Monitoring Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs)

CHDOs are evaluated and re-certified by LAHD every year to ensure that organizations continue to meet all of the CHDO requirements.

The minimum CHDO set-aside of 15% is calculated annually by LAHD, and allocated to CHDO-sponsored housing development projects.

CHDO oversight by LAHD includes an evaluation of compliance with the HOME maximum purchase price/after-rehab value limits, the FHA 203(b) limits, for owner-occupied and homebuyer properties.

Other HOME Program Monitoring Activities

LAHD reviews the status of the HOME grant to ensure that the 24-month deadline to commit and 5-year deadline to expend funds are complied with.

LAHD monitors and reports back on the HOME match requirements to ensure that the 12.5% match requirement is met. An annual report is sent to HUD along with the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).

LAHD also ensures compliance with the minimum HOME subsidy amount of $1,000 per rental unit as well as the maximum 221(d)(3) per-unit limit subsidy amounts.

LAHD ensures that HOME-assisted rental units are inspected at the required frequency of inspections, as stated in the HOME regulations, and ensure compliance with Housing Quality Standards.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 79 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California LAHD also has the responsibility to ensure that homebuyer and rental properties

adhere to the applicable period of affordability. During the affordability period, the City will review tenant household incomes and rents for compliance with HOME and other program requirements.

Monitoring Procedures for Third Party Contractors Implementing Housing Programs: Affordable HousingThe process of implementing a housing program with third party contractors begins with a Request for Proposals (RFPs). The RFP specifies program goals, objectives, a schedule, and grant restrictions. The latter includes a description of the eligible client population. One section of the RFP will include the standards for the service or product to be provided.

On a competitive basis, LAHD will select the program design that has the highest potential of meeting the identified need at a reasonable cost. Once a contractor is selected, an agreement is executed. The agreement will include the scope of work, measurable products, and the standards that must be met to receive compensation and the City's remedies when a contractor fails to perform.

All RFPs, Requests for Qualifications (RFQs), and resulting contracts are reviewed and approved by the Mayor and City Council, following analysis by the City Attorney and the City Administrative Officer. All are discussed as agenda items at public meetings, with multiple opportunities for public comment.

LAHD staff is assigned to monitor progress toward goals and compliance of the completed product with the contract standard. Monitoring is accomplished through a combination of reports and invoices from the contractor coupled with on-site reviews by LAHD staff. Several Consolidated Plan programs utilize third party contractors for program implementation, including LAHD’s array of rehabilitation loan programs which use both HOME and CDBG funds, the Urgent Repair Program which utilizes CDBG funds, HOPWA which uses both HOPWA and HOME funds, and LAHSA, which uses ESG and CDBG funds.

LAHD serves as the administering agency for the ESG grant. LAHD’s oversight monitoring strategy for LAHSA’s City-funded homeless programs generally consists of three components: (1) desk-top review, (2) on-site monitoring, and (3) subcontractor monitoring.

As part of its desk review, LAHD staff reviews and analyzes fiscal and program information and reports submitted by LAHSA on an on-going basis. This includes payment invoices for the various city-funded homeless projects which are submitted to LAHD on a monthly basis; client/program performance reports which are submitted quarterly; and program and budget modification requests which are submitted on an as-needed basis for city review and approval. Lastly, staff reviews LAHSA’s Single Audit Act report which is prepared by an independent accounting firm and submitted on an annual basis.

Regarding on-site monitoring, LAHD staff conducts an annual, on-site review of LAHSA’s administrative, fiscal, and programmatic operations. Additionally, staff attends and actively participates in the monthly meetings of LAHSA’s Finance, Contracts and Grants Management subcommittee, the Programs, Planning, and Policy subcommittee, and the LAHSA Commission. Each of these meetings occurs on a different day of the month.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 80 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaSubcontractor monitoring is one of LAHSA’s direct responsibilities. However, LAHD incorporates visits to a sampling of LAHSA’s city-funded subcontractors into its annual on-site review of LAHSA.

HOPWA Grant MonitoringLAHD serves as the administering agency for the HOPWA grant. LAHD conducts Remote Monitoring of all HOPWA-funded contracted agencies. Every month, all HOPWA-funded contractors are required to submit monthly client demographic reports along with their invoices for personnel, program, operations and administrative costs. The client demographic reports capture all of the HUD-required information mandated either through the CAPER or the Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS) including but not limited to the following; beneficiary information (both clients with HIV/AIDS and other persons in the family unit), gender and age, race/ethnicity, area of the county clients reside, reasons for leaving, mode of transmission, outcomes and narrative.

Another remote monitoring tool used by LAHD is the quarterly assessment. Every three (3) months, a letter is sent to all HOPWA contracted agencies assessing their performance in regards to expenditure rate and client service amounts. Budget amounts and client service goals are stipulated in each individual agency’s contract and also in the Consolidated Plan. The minimum threshold for both of the performance measures is ninety (90) percent and is closely monitored at the conclusion of each twelve (12) month program year. Agencies that do not meet the threshold are required to submit a letter of corrective action to LAHD detailing reasons why they could not meet accomplish their goals and actions to be taken to meet the 90% threshold by the end of the program year.

The LAHD has initiated On-Site Monitoring activities at all of the HOPWA project sponsors that includes a comprehensive assessment of client files to ensure all files have an HIV/AIDS diagnosis form and income verification, ensuring at a minimum that all client income is at or below the 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Agencies are also monitored to ensure that clients do not have to pay for services (except for rent) and funds are not used for health services.

A project sponsor’s Policy and Procedures are also monitored examining such topics as admissions requirements, waiting list procedures, client confidentiality, termination of service, etc. The LAHD contracts with a technical service provider to provide on-site financial monitoring to ensure agencies accounting and invoicing procedures are accurate and in accord with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 and those of the LAHD.

HACLA Program MonitoringThe City entity responsible for monitoring Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funded programs is the Workforce Investment Board (WIB), supported by the Community Development Department (CDD). The WIB maintains various predictors of success and monitors several outcome measures to determine performance, including: customer satisfaction, administrative capability, contribution to annual plan priorities, number of new and carry over customers, placement rates, average hourly wage at placement, retention measurements, credential rate, and leveraged resources.

The CDD monitors HACLA’s CDBG contract use of funds and performance. At this time, HACLA is monitored in terms of:

Residents served per service

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 81 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Number of households served Number of jobs created

HACLA plans its programs in support of WIB and Mayoral priorities, HUD goals, community need, and the City’s Annual Action Plan. The U.S. Department of Labor and HUD review annual progress of agencies such as HACLA.

LAHSA MonitoringA plan for measuring the programmatic performance and financial integrity of contractors is essential for successful contract management. The purpose of monitoring a project is to ensure that the contractor is operating the program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the program. Ongoing monitoring provides an early indication of problems and can help to prevent fraud, waste and mismanagement. Evidence of non-compliance can constitute a violation of the contract which could result in probation, suspension or termination of the contract. LAHSA’s monitoring of ESG and CDBG-funded projects consist of both desk and on-site reviews.

Desk ReviewThe desk review is performed monthly through invoice processing and quarterly through progress reports submitted to LAHSA by the contractor. Contractors are required to report to LAHSA on a monthly basis (for Winter Shelter) and quarterly basis (for other emergency and transitional programs). The report tracks the progress made by the contractor in meeting its goals as specified in its contract.

If any clarification regarding the invoice and/or report is needed, LAHSA staff contact the appropriate agency staff for additional information. In the event that a contractor has not met its contract goals, LAHSA staff must follow through and inquire why the contractor is not achieving its goals. If the contractor does not submit its invoices and/or reports in a timely manner as stated in its contract, LAHSA may put the contractor on probation for a specified period of time.

On-Site ReviewThe on-site monitoring review requires staff to conduct a visit to the contractor’s facility or premises. The purpose of the on-site review is to verify the information reported to LAHSA during the program and determine overall compliance with program regulations and requirements. LAHSA has developed monitoring tools for programmatic and fiscal monitoring which enable staff to perform the monitoring review in a consistent manner.

The programmatic review includes but is not limited to:

Documentation of homelessness; Verification of program outcomes reported to LAHSA; Systems in place for data quality assurance; and Administrative and management procedures for operating the program.

The financial monitoring review includes but is not limited to: Basis of Accounting; Financial Reporting and Accounting System; Revenue and Cash Receipts; Expenditures and Cash Disbursements; and Payroll Calculation Schedule, Benefit Calculation Schedule and Non-Personnel

Schedule.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 82 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

The on-site monitoring review is based on the risk level of each contractor. LAHSA performs an annual risk analysis to determine contractor’s risk level. The on-site visit entails:

Issuance of a notification letter to the contractor stating the proposed date of the site visit;

Provision of documents that need to be completed and returned to LAHSA prior to the site visit;

An entrance conference conducted on the day of the on-site visit prior to the review of documentation. This conference basically summarizes the scope of the review;

Documentation of all work papers produced during the on-site visit; An exit conference conducted at the end of the on-site visit. The purpose of the exit

conference is to present preliminary conclusions resulting from the review and provide the agency with an opportunity to clarify any issues identified or provide additional documentation.

LAHSA staff is required to provide the contractor with a written monitoring report within 25 days of the monitoring visit. The report is typically positive, and recognizes areas where the agency has done a good job or shown significant improvement, as well as pointing out areas where deficiencies exist and corrective action or improvement is required. The monitoring report contains the following:

A full description and identification of the finding; Cites program requirements or applicable regulations that have been violated; Specifies corrective actions that must be taken; and Includes a deadline for responding to the monitoring report and also for correcting

each finding identified in the monitoring report.

Upon receiving the contractor’s response, staff evaluates the actions taken. If the actions taken cure or satisfy the finding, staff sends a clearance letter to the contractor. The purpose of the clearance letter is to establish closure of the finding. If the actions taken by the contractor are unsatisfactory, LAHSA informs the contractor in writing and provides additional time for correction of the finding. In the event that the contractor is still unable to comply with the required corrective actions, LAHSA may put the contractor on probation, suspension or terminate its contract with the contractor.

LAHSA meets the planning requirements of the Consolidated Plan through its Continuum of Care as well as Action Plan meetings. As regional plans to end homelessness are implemented, program outcomes are compared to planned outcomes. The results of the evaluation are used to identify successes and challenges articulated in the plans. They are also used to reassess the plans and update them with data-driven strategies.

Monitoring by the Department of AgingThe Department of Aging receives, in addition to CDBG funds, Federal Older Americans Act funds, State Older Californians Act funds, and City General Fund dollars. The Department is accountable to both the Mayor and City Council, and must comply not only with California Department of Aging regulations, state regulations, and federal regulations as a City entity. The Department must also monitor the limited clientele status of its participants in the Aging Services Delivery System to assure compliance with CDBG regulations, as well as the contract goals and standards for administrative and financial management systems jointly established with its agencies.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 83 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Through the Management Information System, program activity is measured on a monthly basis, and reported to management. Quarterly, performance measurement reports are prepared and evaluated for each contracted agency in respect to the contracted services.

Project activities are carried out through multiple nonprofit organizations located in the City. Project progress is monitored through routine extensive desk review, which consists of reviewing monthly expenditure and service level reports and quarterly program performance reports. These measurements are in place to ensure that contractors are in compliance with the scope of work and units of service as contracted. On-site field visits are conducted quarterly to ensure quality of service provided and mitigation of problems. When problems occur, corrective action plans are initiated and monitoring staff work with service providers to resolve issues. Monitors also provide technical assistance when the need arises.

The Department of Aging conducts monthly training for both the Activity coordinator and the ADSC directors. It also has established best practices benchmarks.

An Equal Access and Safety Protocol (EASP) program has been developed by the Depart-ment which includes a “Standards of Practice” Manuals, program protocol, and protocol tools to assist and facilitate performance by the contracted agencies. Annual training’s for program monitoring staff have been instituted to continue development of these tools and ensure regular monitoring.

Monitoring by the Department on Disability, AIDS Coordinator (ACO)For CDBG-funded programs administered by the ACO, Department on Disability, program effectiveness and efficiency are continuously monitored through periodic reporting, site visits, and staff participation in funded education and awareness events.

Monitoring of Code Enforcement ProgramsThe Pro-Active Code Enforcement (PACE) program inspection teams of the Department of Building and Safety (DBS) are reviewed and closely monitored at several levels of management to ensure that the program’s goals are met.

Similarly, the Nuisance Property Abatement and Demolition program is continually monitored by both the Department’s Code Enforcement Bureau and Financial Services Division to ensure funding is accurately and appropriately expended.

Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies (91.215 (a))

1. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs.

The City has identified three priorities for the use of Consolidated Plan funds, outlined in the Executive Summary. Because of the high and sustained demand for public services, job development and training, and affordable housing, all three priorities are ranked as high.

2. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.Please see the previous sections on gaps in the service delivery system.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 84 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Lead-Based Paint (91.215 (g))

1. Estimate the number of housing units that contain lead-based paint hazards, as defined in section 1004 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and are occupied by extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families.

2. Outline actions proposed or being taken to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards and describe how lead based paint hazards will be integrated into housing policies and programs, and how the plan for the reduction of lead-based hazards is related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards.

1. Extent of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in the City of Los Angeles

The federal government believes that the principal remaining threat of lead poisoning is in the thousands of tons of lead embedded in the painted walls and backyard soils of the nation’s large stock of pre-1978 buildings. It is in these housing units where lead-based paint is most likely to be found and where deteriorated paint in dust and soil puts young children at risk of lead poisoning.

Analysis of 2000 Census data shows that in Los Angeles there are 1,054,148 housing units built before 1978, when lead in paint for residential use was finally banned by federal law. Of these units, sixty percent are renter-occupied and forty percent owner-occupied. The units that pose the highest risk to occupants are poorly maintained units built before 1960. These pre-1960 units comprise half of the City’s total housing stock, and are 47% renter occupied and 53% owner occupied. Also, Los Angeles has over 116,000 rental units built before 1939, surpassed only by New York and Chicago. This older housing is predominately found in census tracts with low and very low-income families, is likely to be in poor condition, and therefore most likely to contain lead-based paint hazards.

Table 8, Age of Housing Stock by Tenure

Year Built Number Owner Renter PercentagePre-1940 212,967 96,932 116,035 17%940-1949 165,455 77,117 88,338 13%

1950-1959 262,257 128,250 134,007 21%1960-1969 222,135 71,550 150,585 17%1970-1979 191,335 53,228 138,106 15%

1980 or Newer 221,274 64,902 156,372 17%Total 1,275,423 491,979 783,443 100%

Source: Census 2000

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 85 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Number of Families

<30% of AMI

% of Families at <30

Number of Families

<50% of AMI

% of Families at <50%

Number of Families <80% of

AMI

% of Families at

<80

133,685 17% 245,688 31% 386,559 48%Source: City of Los Angeles Planning Department

The Housing Authority conducted extensive bulk sampling and XRF Surveys of the lead-based paint hazards in its public housing units in the 1990s. Risk assessments were also conducted of all the conventional public housing developments per HUD Guidelines (Guidelines for the Removal and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing). HACLA identified 8,226 conventional public housing units with various levels of lead-based and or lead containing paint.

Elevated Blood Lead LevelsLead poisoning in young children causes permanent neurological damage, and becomes a hazard to children and pregnant women when poor maintenance causes it to peel and flake, when leaded dust is generated by the impact or friction between two lead-paint-coated surfaces in windows and doors; and when flakes of lead-based paint accumulate in play areas where there is uncovered earth. Children under age six often ingest lead from leaded dust or soil on their hands. Small children sometimes eat chips of leaded paint. Since lead poisoning is asymptomatic except at very high levels, and cannot be detected unless blood lead tests are performed, it is essential to test for and remediate hazards of lead-based paint before children are poisoned.

From 2004 through July 2007, 1,702 children under age six were identified in the City with blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher. A blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood or higher is considered elevated. However, research now indicates that brain damage to children probably occurs at very low levels of blood lead, below 10 micrograms per deciliter. Nearly 30% of these children (509) had at least one reading of 20 micrograms per deciliter or higher. (When a child has two consecutive blood lead levels between 15 and 19 micrograms per deciliter, or one test at 20 micrograms per deciliter or above, the child is considered a lead poisoning “case” according to guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Table 9, Elevated Blood Levels

Elevated Blood Level (EBL)

2004 2005 2006 January 2007 through July 2007

> 10 and <19 477 366 218 132

> 20 391 48 42 28* EBL = 10 or more micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood Source: Los Angeles County Department of Health Services

2. Both the LAHD and the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) play a major role in evaluation and reduction of lead-based paint hazards. Their programs are described below.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 86 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaLAHD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Programs

Since 1999, the Lead-Safe Housing Rule has required testing for lead-based paint and abatement or control of all lead hazards in housing units rehabilitated with federal funds. The housing rehabilitation programs of the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) conduct inspections for lead-based paint in every housing unit that is rehabilitated with federal funds and abate all lead-based paint hazards.

Given inadequate funding for lead hazard control compared to the need, the most efficient protection against lead poisoning is a building code inspection process that addresses lead-based paint hazards, requires mitigation through paint stabilization and lead safe repair work. Since early 2004, LAHD’s Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP) has operated an innovative ‘lead-safe work practices program’ to comply with state law, designed by the local Healthy Homes Collaborative, comprised of 40 community-based and government agencies.

The lead-safe work practices program was awarded “Best Practices” recognition in the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 2004 CUSP Lead-Safe…For Kids’ Sake competition and a U.S. EPA Children’s Environmental Health Recognition Award in 2006. Central to the program’s success have been community-based organizations that conduct outreach in our oldest and poorest neighborhoods.  Two HUD Lead Outreach Grants, awarded in 2003 and 2005, plus a Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant awarded in 2005 support the outreach groups.  The enforcement of lead-safe work practices requirements is now citywide, and is no longer a pilot limited to certain parts of the City.

LAHD has successfully applied for several HUD grants to mitigate lead-based paint hazards in housing units that meet grant criteria. They include a Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Grant, and a Lead-based Paint Hazard Control Grant which also includes outreach. LAHD plans to continue to seek this grant funding to address lead hazards in Los Angeles.

Lead Grant Program funds are used Citywide. To be eligible for funding, properties meet the following requirements:

Property owners and/or tenants are low-income (80% of area median income); The site contains lead-based paint; The property being remediated was built prior to 1978, and The units are or will be occupied by families with at least one child less than six

years of age either residing or frequenting the location.

LAHD targets projects in high-risk lead hazard areas.

High-risk communities contain:

A concentration of pre-1940 housing; Households with young children (less than 6 years old); Low-income residents; A high percentage of rental units; Minority neighborhoods; and A significant number of cases reported with elevated blood lead levels;

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 87 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaLead Hazard Control Program ActivitiesThe Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Program (LHRP) is responsible for inspecting and financing the mitigation of lead hazards in properties receiving assistance from the grant funds, conducts outreach and education, and provides Lead-Related Construction Certification training to employees of the lead remediation contractors used by the program. Additionally, LAHD’s Housing Development Division and Home Ownership and Preservation Divisions conduct lead inspections in the properties where rehabilitation activities are conducted.

LHRP staff coordinates its efforts with various health jurisdictions, community-based organizations, public sector partners and other governmental agencies. Staff meets with the Southern California Health and Housing Council (SCHHC) to coordinate childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts. The SCHHC consists of Los Angeles County Department of Health Services representatives, community groups, tenant advocates and others concerned with lead poisoning prevention issues in the greater Los Angeles area. The LHRP arranged for over 100,000 property owners to receive lead-hazard awareness fact sheets sent with mailings by LAHD’s Rent Stabilization and Code Enforcement Divisions.

HACLA Lead-Based Paint Hazard Mitigation Activities

As part of its renovation projects, HACLA has conducted encapsulation or paint stabilization as required in particular circumstances. HACLA also has contracted with eight environmental consulting firms to provide lead-based paint identification, testing, hazard identification/screening, risk assessment, hazard control, and remediation design. Consultant suggestions are incorporated into the planning/design for all public housing construction, modernization and rehabilitation projects. Ongoing comprehensive improvements are in process through HACLA’s redevelopments and comprehensive modernization efforts.

Between 1990 and 2005, HACLA demolished 2,043 units in five World War II-era Conventional Public Housing Developments: Normont Terrace, Pico Gardens, Aliso Apartments, Aliso Village and Dana Strand Village. With its redevelopment partners, HACLA oversaw the rebuilding of new lead-free units on the first four sites, with new developments: Harbor Village, New Pico Gardens, Las Casitas Rentals and Pueblo Del Sol.

Under HACLA’s Comprehensive Modernization plan, units undergo abatement in which either lead-based paint is removed through demolition or stabilized and enclosed as part of comprehensive modernization work. Nearly 920 units are undergoing Comprehensive Modernization:

Pueblo Del Rio Extension (270 total units; in Phase 6 of 6 in 2007) San Fernando Gardens (448 total units; in Phase 7 of 8 in 2007) Estrada Courts Extension (200 total units; in Phase 5 of 5 in 2007)

Comprehensive Modernization has been planned for the remaining public housing sites, subject to funding availability. HACLA has improved resident and employee knowledge of lead-based paint hazards through annual awareness training and workshops conducted by State Certified trainers. HACLA has also provided ongoing environmental compliance training to its in-house project managers and construction inspectors along with field superintendents and other construction personnel.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 88 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaHOUSING

Housing Needs (91.205)

*Please also refer to the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook

1. Describe the estimated housing needs projected for the next five year period for the following categories of persons: extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income families, renters and owners, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, single persons, large families, public housing residents, victims of domestic violence, families on the public housing and section 8 tenant-based waiting list, and discuss specific housing problems, including: cost-burden, severe cost- burden, substandard housing, and overcrowding (especially large families).

2. To the extent that any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater need for any income category in comparison to the needs of that category as a whole, the jurisdiction must complete an assessment of that specific need. For this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least ten percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole.

1) Estimated Housing Needs for 2008-2013

The State Department of Finance estimates that as of January 2007 the City of Los Angeles had 4 million residents. Its population is growing more rapidly during this decade than it did in the 1990s. From 1990 to 2000, City population increased approximately 6%; whereas, during the first five years of the current decade, the population has already grown 7%.

Since housing affordability problems and homelessness surfaced in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, there have been many needs assessments, strategic planning efforts and reports issued about these problems. In addition to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and the Housing & Community Development Consolidated Planning process, the City of Los Angeles has considered and adopted recommendations from the:

Blue Ribbon Committee for Affordable Housing (1988) Rental Housing Study (1994) Blue Ribbon Citizen’s Committee on Slum Housing (1997) Housing Crisis Task Force (1999-2000) In-fill Housing Subcommittee of the City Planning Commission (2001) Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee (2002)

In addition to ongoing affordability problems, a new housing crisis began on January 17, 1994 when the Northridge Earthquake damaged over 330,000 housing units in the City, including 19,000 vacated units, mostly apartments and condominiums. Many were rehabilitated with the special assistance of $340 million of CDBG, HOME and Section 108 resources from HUD. Until Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Northridge earthquake held the record as the most damaging natural disaster to affect a major American city.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 89 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Over the years, other strategic planning processes have led to the establishment of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) and its Continuum of Care planning, and informed the drafts of several Housing Elements (a state-required portion of the City’s General Plan). The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) and LAHD have undergone various strategic planning, program evaluation and development and reorganization processes as well.

Development of this new five year Consolidated Plan strategy coincides with the drafting of a new Housing Element for the City, allowing for coordination of demographic research and analysis, program evaluation, and development. Nearly all the reports and strategic planning processes have highlighted similar problems and called for attention to:

the decreasing affordability of the City’s housing stock the lack of home ownership opportunities for most City residents the growing mismatch of jobs, wages, rent and for-sale prices and the shortage or

apartments able to accommodate large families the loss of existing lower cost, unsubsidized rental housing through market and

other changes (condominium conversions in the 1970s and 80s, earthquake damage in the 1990s, demolition for new development in the 2000s plus a new wave of condominium conversions)

the loss of existing affordable housing due to expiring affordability restrictions required by earlier federal, state and local subsidies

the high land costs and a scarcity of vacant land in a largely ‘built-out city land use and zoning barriers

All of these issues still apply. Home and land prices have continued to rise, in comparison to wages. Thus homeownership is even more out of reach than in 2003 when the last five year strategic Consolidated Plan was written.

The 2007 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, released in October 2007, stated that of the approximately 73,702 persons homeless on any given day in the entire County of Los Angeles, 40,144 of them – 55% - reside in the City of Los Angeles. This includes approximately 6,000 homeless children. The Los Angeles County Health Department estimates that 50% of the approximate 60,000 PLWHA in Los Angeles County live within the City of Los Angeles. The 2007 Homeless Count conducted by LAHSA estimates nearly 1,700 homeless PLWHA in the City of Los Angeles.

The median annual household income in Los Angeles is $42,667 as of 2005 (ACS), significantly less than that of the County ($48,248), the State ($53,629) and the U.S. ($46,242). In other words, Los Angeles City has proportionately more households at lower incomes, which was also true in 1990 and 2000. It is important to note that, since 2000, the City’s median income has moved further below that of the County, the State and the U.S., compared to 1990 when it was nearly the same as the U.S. The chart below shows the distribution of households by annual household income for Los Angeles City. (DCP, 2007)

Table 10 Households in Los Angeles by Annual Income

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 90 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaINCOME CATEGORY NUMBER OF

HOUSEHOLDSPERCENT OF ALL

HOUSEHOLDSTotal 1,284,124 100%Less than $10,000 140,031 11% 10,000 to 14,999 88,374 7% 15,000 to 19,999 86,846 7% 20,000 to 24,999 85,911 6% 25,000 to 29,999 67,230 5% 30,000 to 34,999 74,204 6% 35,000 to 39,000 59,801 5% 40,000 to 44,999 63,091 5% 45,000 to 49,999 51,141 4% 50,000 to 59,999 105,091 8% 60,000 to 74,999 116,009 9% 75,000 to 99,000 127,501 10%100,000 to 124,999 74,425 6%135,000 to 149,999 41,923 3%150,000 to 199,999 42,757 3%200,000 or more 59,789 5%Median Household Income (dollars) 42,667  

Los Angeles Housing Department Source: U.S. Census, 2005 American Community Survey

The area median income is established for the entire Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area. The table below shows the City has a greater proportion of very low income and low income households compared to the County. (DCP, 2007)

Table 11, Household Income Distribution by Income Category, Los Angeles City and County

Income Category Definition as % of County Median

Household Income (CMHI)*

% of Total Households LA

City

% of Total Households LA County

Very Low < 50% CMHI 29.5 24.7Low 51% to 80% CMHI 16.8 15.7

Moderate 81% to 120% CMHI 16.6 17.1Above Moderate > 120% CMHI 37.1 42.6Department of City Planning (2007) Source: 2000 U.S. Census* Income categories are defined in relation to the County Median Household Income (CMHI). The CMHI is derived from the 2000 U.S. Census.

Of the very low-income households, it is estimated that 18% (228,405 households) are extremely low-income, earning only up to 30% of the county median income ($14,474 annually), per the 2005 ACS. Another telling measure of income is the proportion of persons living below the poverty line, the federal measure that is three times the annual cost of a nutritionally adequate diet.

The 2005 poverty rate in Los Angeles City is significant at 20% of the population (747,613 persons of 3,717,462 total population for whom poverty statistics can be calculated by the Census, per the 2005 ACS). This includes both those living alone and those in families. This is far greater than both the County’s poverty rate of 16% and the national poverty rate of 13%. (DCP, 2007)

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 91 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

As a result of insufficient household income, many City residents pay far too much for housing, and live in overcrowded conditions. Severe overcrowding, defined as more than 1.51 persons per room, affected over 216,000 households in 2000, more than 18% of all City households (Census 2000).

HUD’s CHAS data shows that in Los Angeles, over 167,800 renter households, with incomes ranging from 0 to 80% of the area median, pay over half of their monthly pre-tax income for housing costs, leaving little for other necessities. These households represent approximately 488,000 residents with severe housing affordability problems, based on the City’s average household size of 2.91. Over 56,600 low income homeowner households in the same income range, comprising about 164,700 residents, also pay over half of their monthly gross income for housing.

Households with Special NeedsCertain persons or households face greater challenges than the general population in finding housing given their unique “special needs” and circumstances. Such circumstances range from fixed incomes to limited mobility to large households. Not all housing units in the general housing stock can meet the housing needs of persons or households with such special needs.

The following section identifies persons and households in Los Angeles City with such special needs, and their unique housing issues. These groups represent a significant part of the City’s population, and efforts must be made to ensure that decent, affordable and accessible housing is available to all such special needs populations. The Table below identifies each of these groups, or subpopulations, and their respective representation within the City’s population. (Department of City Planning, 2007)

Table 12, Special Needs Populations, City of Los AngelesSubpopulation Persons Households % of Citywide

TotalElderly (65 years +) 345,987 X 9%Persons with Disabilities (16-64 years)

395,014 X6%

Large Families (5 or more persons) X 185,276 14%

Families with Female Heads-of-Household X 195,123 15%

Persons living with HIV/AIDS

30,000***

Homeless* 48,103* XFarmworkers** 2,039** X 0.0005%

Department of City Planning (2007) Source: 2005 ACS* 2005 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count** 2000 Census; 2005 ACS estimate not available.***Los Angeles County Office of AIDS Programs & Policy (OAPP)

Elderly

Elderly persons also live in institutions and other group quarters. Per the 2000 Census, 18,009 elderly Los Angeles residents lived in group quarters, which include institutions, hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, correctional institutions, and non-institutional group

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 92 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaquarters. This population comprised 5% of the total elderly population in 2000. More recent data is not available.

Generally, elderly persons have lower incomes than the population at large. Among the elderly who are heads of households, the median household income is $27,271, far lower than the citywide median household income of $40,682, according to the 2004 Census. In 2004, 12% (41,998 persons) of the City’s elderly residents were living below the poverty level, compared to 18% of the City’s total population who live below the poverty line.

With lower incomes, the elderly generally face a greater housing cost burden. Of elderly heads of households who are renters, well over half pay more than 35% of their income for rent (44,877 of 79,618 elderly renter households). Among the homeowners, one-third pays more than 35% of their income for housing costs (40,657 of 128,708 elderly homeowners).

Among elderly persons living alone and in households with others, 150,991 (42%) are living with disabilities. While physical disabilities are the most prevalent among this population (77%), other disabilities are also significant: 39% have a sensory disability; 34% have a mental disability; 26% have a self-care disability; and 45% have a disability that limits their ability to go outside the home on their own.

The housing needs of the elderly are particularly challenging and require special attention because of the combination of fixed incomes, physical challenges, and mobility and transportation limitations, all of which limit access to appropriate and affordable housing.

Persons with DisabilitiesAdults (ages 16 –64 years old) with disabilities who live in households on their own or with others comprise 6% of the population citywide (223,572 persons), per the 2004 U.S. Census (this does not include those persons with disabilities living in institutions or other group quarters). A disability, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, is a long-lasting sensory, physical, mental or emotional condition that makes it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. The types of disability and their prevalence within the City’s disabled population are as follows, per the 2004 U.S. Census:

Sensory limitation(includes vision and hearing limitations):

24%

Physical limitation(includes any condition that limits physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying):

65%

Mental disability(includes any physical, mental or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to learn, remember, or concentrate):

34%

Self-care limitation(includes any physical, mental or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to dress, bathe, or get around inside the home):

26%

Going-outside-home limitation(includes any physical, mental or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to go outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’s office):

22%

Employment limitation 50%

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 93 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California(includes any physical, mental or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to work at a job or a business):

Department of City Planning (2007)

Persons with disabilities also live in institutions and other group quarters. Per the 2000 U.S. Census, 5,017 persons lived in group quarters, which include institutions, hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, and non-institutional group quarters (i.e. group homes).

Over one-half of all disabled adults in the City have “going-outside-home” or other employment limitations which affect the ability to work and earn an income. Without the opportunity to work or with restricted employment opportunities, finding housing in an expensive market is very difficult.

Among the adult disabled population (16 years or older), 24% (166,636 adults) live below the poverty level, per the 2000 U.S. Census. This can be compared to a poverty rate of 18% for the adult population without disabilities. For most of the adult disabled population, the only source of income is a small fixed monthly income from Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and/or Supplementary Security Income (SSI). SSDI is based on prior work under social security and can be supplemented with SSI and/or California State Disability Insurance for low wage workers.

SSDI varies based on past earnings with an average payment of $979 per month for single disabled persons. SSI is available for low income persons 65 and older and for blind and disabled persons of any age. Eligibility for SSI does not require prior work history, and payments are based on financial need. Average SSI payments in California are $856 for disabled persons and $921 for blind persons (this includes both federal and state payments). In order to qualify for either SSI or SSDI, a person must have a condition that interferes with basic work related activities and may not make more than $900 per month. The process to qualify for funds can be lengthy.

Persons with disabilities in the City face unique problems in obtaining affordable and adequate housing. For these adults, the obstacle to independent living is not only their disability, but also a lack of financial resources. Typical fixed monthly incomes do not adequately cover monthly housing costs and living expenses. Another barrier faced is discrimination. In 2001, the City’s fair housing contractor, the Housing Rights Center, found that physical disability ranked third among the most frequent inquiries, accounting for 15 percent of all inquiries. By 2006, physical disability was the leading cause of inquiries, accounting for 25 percent of the inquiries. This increase is attributed to the greater focus and education that housing rights advocates have provided to persons with disabilities, who are now better-informed of their rights, have more access to services, and a better understanding of when a complaint or inquiry is warranted.

Nearly one-quarter of disabled adults aged 16-64 and two-thirds of adults over the age of 65 have physical limitations. Adults living with physical limitations require accessible residential units. Newly constructed multifamily units are required to be accessible to disabled persons, however, many older, and therefore more affordable units, are not accessible to those with disabilities. Finding affordable, accessible units is a challenge. Adults with self-care limitations also have unique housing needs because they need the assistance of a companion or family member in order to accomplish daily activities.

As with any population, a full spectrum of affordable housing is needed, from mobile home, temporary shelters to transitional and permanent housing, including group,

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 94 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiacongregate and independent housing. Independent, supported living is preferable, either through individual or shared homes or apartments, providing each individual with his/her own bedroom. Support services may be provided either on- or off-site. Appropriate housing for persons with mental or physical disabilities includes very low cost small or large group homes (near retail services and public transit), supervised apartment settings, outpatient/day treatment programs, and inpatient/day treatment programs or crisis shelters. Persons with physical disabilities need low-cost, conveniently-located housing which has been specially adapted for wheelchair accessibility, along with other physical needs.

Large FamiliesLarge families are defined as families of five or more persons. In 2005, there were 180,595 large family households, comprising approximately 23% of all family households in the City (2005 ACS).

In Los Angeles, the median family income in 2005 was $47,434 (2005 ACS). This includes family households (households consisting of one family who occupies a housing unit) and families of related individuals (with members of varying relationships and who may share a housing unit with another family). The median income among large families is very close to this citywide median for a family of 5 ($44,608), and increases for larger families ($50,033 for a family of 6 and $60,097 for a family of 7 or more persons). These median incomes correspond to low and very low income categories. Data on family households only is not available in the 2005 ACS.

Large families occupy 28% of the 1,284,124 occupied housing units in the City. Large family households need large housing units of three or more bedrooms in order not experience overcrowding (1.01 or more persons per room, under the federal standard). Large housing units are generally not affordable to the many low and very low income large families. Given that the majority of large families are renters, there is a continuing need for large rental units. In additional, large families typically require child care facilities and accessible recreation areas. (DCP, 2007)

Families with Female Heads of HouseholdsFemale-headed families are families in which the mother is rearing children on her own. In Los Angeles City, of family households (those households comprised of a family only and include all related individuals), there are 191,232 households headed by a female householder with no husband present, per the 2005 ACS. Of these, just over one-half (104,189 female-headed households) include their own children under 18 years old.

Incomes are low among this population. Over one-half of single, female-headed households receive public assistance (2005 ACS). One-third of female householders with no husband present, live below the poverty line (61,226 female householders, 2005 ACS).

Single, female-headed households occupy close to 15% of all occupied housing units (2005 ACS) The vast majority of these households—70%--are renters (133,439 households, 2005 ACS).

Given their very low incomes, single, female-headed households need rental units at rents well below the current market rents in Los Angeles and/or significant rental subsidies to help them pay current market rents. These families also require safe recreation space for their children along with accessible childcare.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 95 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaPersons Living With HIV/AIDS In a report published by the County of Los Angeles HIV Epidemiology Program, as of June 2006, there are a total of 51,011 cumulative cases of persons living with AIDS (HIV/AIDS Semi-Annual Surveillance, 2006). The Los Angeles County Office of AIDS Programs and Policy (OAPP) estimates that 60,000 individuals are living with HIV/AIDS in Los Angeles County, including 12,500 and 15,000 individuals unaware of their infection. About 53% of persons living with HIV/AIDS in the County reside within the City of Los Angeles, or more than 30,000 residents. Only New York City has a higher prevalence of reported AIDS cases as a percent of its population.

HIV/AIDS symptoms requiring treatment can lead to the loss of jobs due to high absentee rates. Fifty-two percent of respondents to the Los Angeles County HIV/AIDS Comprehensive CARE Plan Needs Assessment Survey indicated that they live in poverty (County of Los Angeles, 2002). A study conducted by Shelter Partnership indicated that 86% of study participants were unemployed (Shelter Partnership Inc., 1999). Two-thirds of survey respondents indicated that they spend more than 30% of their income on housing (Ibid, 1999). Without a steady income, stable housing is hard to maintain.

Access to stable housing is necessary to keep up with the complex drug regimen that minimizes symptoms; many drugs require proper storage and refrigeration in order to be effective. Although new HIV/AIDS cases have declined, the number of living patients has increased due to more effective treatments. While therapies such as combined antiretroviral therapy have greatly increased life span for the HIV-infected population, this therapy is very expensive at about $2,000 per month (Schackman et al., 2006) and reduces their ability to pay for housing.

Estimates suggest that between 30 and 40% of people with HIV/AIDS are uninsured (County of Los Angeles, 2002). The challenges to living with HIV/AIDS are compounded by other factors, including mental illness and substance abuse. In a Shelter Partnership study, 38% of survey respondents also identified a substance abuse issue (Shelter Partnership Inc., 1999). As a result, a variety of housing types and flexible programs are required, that can respond to changing needs over time.

A Shelter Partnership report (2003) that collected data from HIV/AIDS patients in Los Angeles County identified the following housing options most needed for this population:

1. Rent/mortgage assistance to stay in own home2. Transitional housing3. Subsidized independent living4. Emergency shelter5. Shared housing with services

This publication also noted a severe shortage of housing for people with HIV/AIDS in the County. As of 2003, there were 3,351 available beds with an additional 38,679 people needing some type of housing assistance. Overall, the biggest barrier to housing for people with HIV/AIDS in LA County is the high cost of housing and the shortage of affordable alternatives (Shelter Partnership, 2005).

Housing Needs of those served by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA)

A. Housing Needs of Families in the Jurisdiction/s Served by the PHARating Factor for each family type: 1 = “No Impact”

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 96 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California5 = “Severe Impact”

Table 13, Housing Needs of Families in the Jurisdiction by Family Type

Family Type Overall Affordability Supply Quality Access-ability Size Location

Income<= 30% of AMI

251,468 5 5 5 5 5 5

Income >30% but <=50%

of AMI181,163 4 4 4 4 4 4

Income >50% but <80%

of AMI209,280 4 4 4 4 4 4

Elderly 3,701,104 4 4 4 4 4 4

Families with Disabilities 424,631 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

U.S. Census data: the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (“CHAS”) dataset 2005 American Community Survey

Table 14, Housing Needs of Families on the Public Housing and Section 8 Tenant- Based Assistance Waiting Lists

Housing Needs of Families on the Waiting List

Public Housing

# of families % of total families Annual Turnover

Waiting list total 17,194 364

Extremely low income <=30% AMI 14,786 86%

Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI) 2,407 14%

Low income(>50% but <80% AMI) 7 0%

Families with children 8,236 47.9%

Elderly families 4,488 26.1%

Families with Disabilities 1,169 6.8%

Hispanic 8,334 48.5%

African American 6,184 36%Caucasian 965 5.6%

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 97 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Housing Needs of Families on the Waiting List

Asian 1,671 9.7%

Bedroom Size Characteristics # Families % of Total Families AnnualTurnover

1BR (inc 0 bedroom) 9,074 52.8% 58

2 BR 3,319 19% 1993 BR 4,266 24.8% 714 BR 527 3.1% 265 BR 6 0% 105+ BR 2 0% N/A

Table 15, Housing Needs of Families on the Waiting List

Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance

# of families % of total families Annual Turnover

Waiting list total 16,486

Extremely low income <=30% AMI 12,035 73%

Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI) 4,121 25%

Low income(>50% but <80% AMI) 330 2%

Families with children 6,594 40%

Elderly families 8,243 50%

Families with Disabilities 8,243 50%

Hispanic 3,292 20%

African American 9,232 56%Caucasian 3,627 22%Asian 330 2%

Bedroom Size Characteristics # Families % of Total Families AnnualTurnover

1BR (inc 0 bedroom) 6,430 39%

2 BR 6,598 40%3 BR 2,803 17%4 BR 495 3%5 BR 148 .90%5+ BR 12 .07% N/A

Priority Housing Needs (91.215 (b))

1. Identify the priority housing needs and activities in accordance with the categories specified in the Housing Needs Table (formerly Table 2A). These categories correspond with special tabulations of U.S. census data provided by HUD for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 98 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California2. Provide an analysis of how the characteristics of the housing market and the

severity of housing problems and needs of each category of residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority housing need category. (Note: Family and income types may be grouped in the case of closely related categories of residents where the analysis would apply to more than one family or income type.)

3. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs.

4. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.

1. Table 2A, Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Table (Table 16)

Priority Housing Needs (Households) Priority Unmet Need

0-30% High 59,290Small Related 31-50% High 49,030

51-80% Medium 60,2250-30% High 28,810

Large Related 31-50% High 28,50551-80% Medium 32,395

Renter 0-30% High 35,040Elderly 31-50% High 20,955

51-80% Medium 13,9050-30% High 56,800

All Other 31- 50% High 31,69551-80% Medium 44,2800-30% High 7,235

Small Related 31-50% High 7,63051-80% Medium 17,6850-30% High 4,105

Large Related 31-50% High 6,575Owner 51-80% Medium 14,705

0-30% High 12,573Elderly 31-50% High 14,624

51-80% Medium 19,8780-30% High 5,488

All Other 31-50% High 3,84451-80% Medium 5,705

*Non-HomelessSpecial Needs

Elderly 0-80% High no data availableFrail Elderly 0-80% High no data availableSevere Mental Illness 0-80% High no data availablePhysical Disability 0-80% High no data availableDevelopmental 0-80% High no data availableAlcohol/Drug Abuse 0-80% High no data availableHIV/AIDS 0-80% High no data available

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 99 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaVictims of Domestic V 0-80% High no data available

Los Angeles Housing Department (2007)* Non-Homeless Special Needs – CHAS data is not available for this category to complete the “Unmet Need” for persons with Housing Needs.

Table 2A Priority Housing Activities (Table 17)

Priority Need 5-Yr.Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 1Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 2Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 3Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 4Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 5

Goal Plan/Act

Renters 0 - 30 of MFI 1070 261 235 212 191 171-- 31 - 50% of MFI 536 131 118 106 95 86 51 - 80% of MFI 532 130 117 105 95 85

Owners 0 - 30 of MFI 206 52 52 34 34 34 31 - 50 of MFI 206 52 52 34 34 34 51 - 80% of MFI 274 68 68 46 46 46Homeless* 0 0 0 0 0 0 **Individuals 1126 275 248 223 200 180 **Families 1126 275 248 223 200 180Non-Homeless Special Needs Elderly 5000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Frail Elderly 0 0 0 0 0 0 Severe Mental Illness 0 0 0 0 0 0 Physical Disability 7500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Developmental Disability 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alcohol/Drug Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 0 HIV/AIDS 7431 1431 1500 1500 1500 1500 Victims of Domestic Violence 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

Total Section 215

215 Renter1924 470 423 381 343 308

215 OwnerTBD

Los Angeles Housing Department (2007)

Table 2A Priority Housing Activities (Table 18)Priority Need 5-Yr.

Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 1Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 2Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 3Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 4Goal

Plan/Act

Yr. 5Goal

Plan/Act

CDBGAcquisition of existing rental unitsProduction of new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 0Rehabilitation of existing rental units

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 100 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaRental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0Acquisition of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 0Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 0Rehabilitation of existing owner units*Homeownership assistance 686 172 172 114 114 114

HOMEAcquisition of existing rental unitsProduction of new rental units 2,138 522 470 423 381 342Rehabilitation of existing rental unitsRental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0Acquisition of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 0Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 0Rehabilitation of existing owner units*Homeownership assistance 686 172 172 114 114 114

HOPWA*Rental assistance 2,431 431 500 500 500 500Short term rent/mortgage utility payments

5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Facility based housing development 0 0 0 0 0 0Facility based housing operations 3,491 683 683 700 700 725Supportive services 63,896 12,704 12,817 12,800 12,800 12,775

Other

Los Angeles Housing Department (2007)

2. Provide an analysis of how the characteristics of the housing market and the severity of housing problems and needs of each category of residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority housing need category.

The variety of housing problems and needs experienced by residents of Los Angeles requires a range of housing activities to address them. There is no “one size fits all” solution, nor are there sufficient resources to ameliorate the problems of many. It is for this reason that ‘high’ priority is assigned to the needs of both renter and owner households below 50% of median income, and ‘medium’ priority is given to those between 50-80% of median income. We make the assumption that the lower the household income, the more affected the residents will be by high housing costs, with a greater likelihood of overcrowding, and poor housing conditions.

3. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs.

In each category, highest priority has been assigned to the needs of the lowest income residents, be they renter or owner, based on the assumption that in this high cost real estate market, they are at greater risk of displacement, homelessness or other serious housing situation due to limited financial resources. Similarly, high priority is assigned to

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 101 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiathe housing needs of low-income persons with disabilities or other special needs for assistance, given the other difficulties and limitations they face.

4. Obstacles to meeting underserved needs.

The main obstacle faced by Los Angeles in its efforts to meet underserved needs is the lack of sufficient funds. The needs of City residents in an expensive real estate market far exceed the available Consolidated Plan and Section 8 rental assistance resources. Limited funds for maintaining and modernizing conventional public housing, and limited program funds to leverage with City resources, such as HUD’s 202 and 811 loan programs, as well as insufficient homeless assistance funding all have a major negative impact on the City’s ability to serve its residents and ensure that they have decent, affordable homes in which to live.

Another obstacle in this housing market with few vacant units is housing discrimination, which occurs when a person is denied an equal opportunity to rent or buy housing of their choice, as defined under state and federal fair housing laws. The Federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) was enacted on April 11, 1968, and amended in 1988. It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (gender and sexual harassment), disability (mental and physical, including AIDS and HIV), and familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18). The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act include all the protected categories listed under the Federal Fair Housing Act and also include ancestry, source of income, marital status, medical condition, age, and sexual orientation. In addition, the City of Los Angeles enacted ordinances to prohibit discrimination based on age, student status, AIDS affliction, and age of mobile homes.

The fair housing laws prohibit discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including:

Refusing to negotiate, rent or sell housing Advertising Unlawful evictions Public and private land use practices (zoning) Setting different terms or conditions for sale or rental of a dwelling Application and selection process Terms and conditions of tenancy Providing different housing services or facilities Mortgage loans and insurance, real estate services and transactions Unlawful restrictive covenants Falsely denying to someone that the housing is available for inspection, sale, or

rental For profit, steering owners to sell or rent Denying anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a

multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing

Fair housing laws also require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, and services to permit people with disabilities to use and enjoy a dwelling. The law also allows persons with disabilities, at their own expense, to make reasonable modifications of the premises.

Recent Housing Discrimination Trends

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 102 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaIn Los Angeles, the majority of fair housing complaints made between 2000 and 2006 to the City’s contractor, the Housing Rights Center, allege discrimination based on race, familial status, and physical disability. In 2001, physical disability ranked third among the most frequent inquiries, accounting for 15 percent of the inquiries (see table below). By 2006, physical disability was the leading cause of inquiries, accounting for 25 percent of the inquiries. The increase in inquiries among this group is attributed to the greater focus and education that housing rights advocates have afforded this population. As a consequence, individuals with physical disabilities are now better-informed of their rights, have more access to services, and a better understanding of when a complaint or inquiry is warranted.

Table 19, Fair Housing Inquiries

FY 2000 -2001

Percent FY 2005-2006

Percent

Race 242 31% 177 14%Familial Status 172 22% 299 24%Physical Disability

115 15% 311 25%

Department of City Planning (2007)

Discrimination cases develop from further investigation into the inquiries received. Over the years, familial status, where a landlord refuses to rent a unit to families with children, has been consistently cited. In 2006, familial status accounted for the highest percent of cases filed (see table below).

Table 20, Cases

FY 2000 -2001

Percent FY 2005-2006

Percent

Race 131 35% 67 12%Familial Status 93 25% 206 36%Physical Disability

59 16% 137 24%

Department of City Planning (2007)

Increasingly, investigations of housing discrimination complaints conducted through the Citywide Fair Housing Program sustain the allegation of housing discrimination. In 2001, only 36 percent of the cases/investigations resulted in a finding of discrimination. The number increased to 52 percent by 2006. The increase can be attributed to better investigation and testing procedures, which have come since the program employed full-time attorneys specializing in housing rights. Remedies for housing discrimination can include injunctive relief, monetary damages and penalties, administrative relief through the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and conciliation and mediation conducted by HRC or its subcontractors. To date, fair housing case settlements amount to over $3 million.

Housing Market Analysis (91.210)

Please also refer to the Housing Market Analysis Table in the Needs.xls workbook

1. Based on information available to the jurisdiction, describe the significant characteristics of the housing market in terms of supply, demand, condition, and

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 103 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiathe cost of housing; the housing stock available to serve persons with disabilities; and to serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. Data on the housing market should include, to the extent information is available, an estimate of the number of vacant or abandoned buildings and whether units in these buildings are suitable for rehabilitation.

2. Describe the number and targeting (income level and type of household served) of units currently assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an assessment of whether any such units are expected to be lost from the assisted housing inventory for any reason, (i.e. expiration of Section 8 contracts).

3. Indicate how the characteristics of the housing market will influence the use of funds made available for rental assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of old units, or acquisition of existing units. Please note, the goal of affordable housing is not met by beds in nursing homes.

1. Describe the significant characteristics of the housing market in terms of supply, demand, condition, and the cost of housing

The amount a household pays each month for rent or for owning a home (mortgage payment, mortgage insurance, homeowner association fees, and property taxes) is deemed affordable if the total payment is 30% or less of the household’s monthly income. In 2007, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan area was deemed the least affordable area in the country because so few households can purchase a home or rent a unit at a cost that is 30% or less than the household’s income. Only 3% of homes sold between January and March were affordable to those earning the area median income of $61,700 [per the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI)]. The Los Angeles region has the distinction of being been rated the least affordable large metropolitan area in this index since 2005.

While other cities have more expensive housing, Los Angeles’ unique situation is a result of the combined impact of the very low median income of its residents and the high cost of land in the City. 57.5% of renters and 46.5% of owners pay more than 30% of their income for housing costs. Furthermore, housing cost burden is severe for many households; 30.3% of renters pay more than 50% of income for housing costs.

Homeownership CostsIn the first quarter of 2007, the median home price was $525,000 for the Los Angeles-Long Beach Glendale area (per the NAHB/Wells Fargo HOI). A household would have to earn at least $118,344 annually to afford the mortgage for a home at this price (assuming a 30-yr fixed rate mortgage, at the then-current interest rate of 6.41%, with a 10% down payment, and no more than 30% of income dedicated to housing). This income of $118,344 falls between the 8th and 9th deciles, meaning that a family with this income would be earning more than 80% of all families, per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) FY2006 income estimates for the Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area at the time.

When property taxes and homeowner insurance are added to the monthly cost, the percentage of the population that can afford this median priced home drops further. If this home is a condominium, homeowner association fees further increase the monthly costs and the proportion of the population that can afford this median priced home drops even further.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 104 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Aside from the high cost of land in Los Angeles, two key factors influence the costs of homeownership significantly--size of mortgage and credit quality of the borrower. These two factors have contributed significantly to the challenge of affordable homeownership in Los Angeles City.

Mortgage Amount High sales prices trigger higher borrowing costs because mortgage amounts in Los Angeles are frequently non-conforming ‘jumbo’ loans, which are not backed by the Federal government. A loan exceeding $417,000 will not be backed by governmental financing agencies (such as Fannie Mae), and therefore, lenders require payment of added loan points up front as well as a higher interest rate. Thus, higher sales prices equate to higher monthly costs to the owner. For the median-priced home of $525,000, a mortgage at 80% of sales price is $420,000 and requires borrowers to secure a higher cost, non-conforming loan.

Credit Quality of Borrowers Lenders offer mortgages at lower interest rates and with fewer loan points to borrowers with the highest credit rating, i.e. those with a long-term, consistent source of income, cash reserves for emergencies or job loss, and a strong credit history. Low and median income families in Los Angeles are unable to meet these standards and thus pay both higher interest rates and additional fees for mortgages, further reducing the affordability of housing.

Borrowers earning below 80% of area median income, eligible for City assistance with HOME and ADDI grant funds, cannot afford such high prices. LAHD second mortgage assistance is combined only with prime, not sub-prime, mortgage finance. However, many others in Los Angeles, fearful that the housing market would continue to rise, took the subprime mortgage option to buy a home they could not afford, and now face default and foreclosure. In Los Angeles County, in the three-month period ending June 30, 2007, there were 9,504 foreclosures, a 725% increase over the same period a year earlier

Rental CostsIn larger rental properties (100+ units) The average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Los Angeles in 2007 is $1,643 per month (per Real Facts, “Market Overview for the City of Los Angeles”), requiring an income of at least $5,477 monthly or $65,720 annually to be affordable. Yet only 36% of the City’s households earn $60,000 or more annually. The following table shows the average rents by unit size, the annual income required to afford this rent, and the percentage of the population at this household size that earns this income.

Table 21, Market Rents and Income NeededApartment

SizeAverage Monthly Rent*

Wage Needed to Afford Rent**

Annual Income Needed to

Afford Rent**

Percent of Total Households

Studio $1,140 $21.92/hr $45,600 14%1Bed/1Bath $1,509 $29.02/hr $60,360 17%2Bed/1Bath $1,643 $31.60/hr $65,720 17%

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 105 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California3Bed/2Bath $2,483 $47.75/hr $99,320 8%

Department of City Planning (2007)*Real Facts. Market Overview for the city of Los Angeles. Average Rent. First Quarter 2007.**LAHD calculations, assuming 30% of income is allocated to monthly rent.

As illustrated in the chart below, extremely low income and single-person households can afford rents of no more than $400, while low income, large family households can afford no more than $1600. Such rents are virtually unavailable in Los Angeles.

Affordable Rental Rate Based on Income City of Los Angeles

$0.00$200.00$400.00$600.00$800.00

$1,000.00$1,200.00$1,400.00$1,600.00$1,800.00

ExtremelyLow Income (30% AMI)

Very LowIncome (50% AMI)

Low Income (80% AMI)

Source: Department of City Planning (2007) FY 2007 Income Limits Summary. Los Angeles – Long Beach, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area. “Affordable” is defined as spending no more than 30 percent of the specified Area Median Income on housing.

Rental units with government restricted rents and occupancies restricted to lower income households address this need. However, more affordable rental units are needed because the number of households with incomes below the median is so large. HUD’s CHAS data shows 460,930 households below 80% of area median income with unmet housing needs, representing 59% of all renter households in the City.

Consequences of the huge disparity between rents and incomes include homelessness and overcrowding as households are forced to share units in order to afford the rents. In addition, illegal units are created that do not meet building and zoning codes, posing safety hazards to occupants and negative impacts on neighborhoods.

Overcrowded HousingAccording to the Federal Government, overcrowding occurs when a dwelling unit is occupied by 1.01 or more persons per room. Severely overcrowded units are defined as those occupied by 1.51 persons or more per room.

In 2000, 325,958 of households, or 25.6% of occupied units in the City, were considered to be overcrowded. About 71% of the overcrowded households were severely overcrowded. In 2006, within the five-county SCAG region, Los Angeles County had the highest rate of overcrowded housing (12.1%). (SCAG, State of the Region Report, p. 55, 2007)

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 106 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Source: US Census 2000 and 2005 American Community Survey

Table 22 Overcrowded Housing UnitsOwner Occupied Renter Occupied

Total Occupied Units 491,836 783,522Overcrowded 28,065 67,537Severely Overcrowded 38,757 191,599All Overcrowded Units 66,822 259,136Department of City Planning (2007)

Table 22 indicates that overcrowding is more severe among renter households than owner occupied households. As the price of owning a home has increased, many who cannot afford to own homes live in rental housing. As more renters are experiencing overcrowding, this may signal an increase in the experience of overcrowding for Angelenos of lower incomes. In fact, in 2000 over 53% of Angelenos paid over 30% of their income for housing (Census Table H69).

The rate of overcrowding is greater in Los Angeles City compared to Los Angeles County and the State. In Los Angeles County in 2000, 23% of housing was overcrowded. In the State, 15% of housing was overcrowded.

Overcrowded conditions exist due to many reasons. One reason is the lack of affordable dwelling units, especially for large families. In 2000, there were 216,749 large family households, comprising approximately 27% of family households in the City. In order for large families to avoid being overcrowded, they need dwelling units with three or more bedrooms. Although large families were approximately 27% of the family household population, only 8.6% of rental units in the City had three or more bedrooms in 2000.

One of the frequent consequences of overcrowding is the creation of illegal dwelling units, such as occupied garages. The high incidence of these residences signifies a housing market that is lacking units affordable to low-income households or larger households.

Vacancy RateLos Angeles has a very tight housing market. Vacancy rates in rental and for-sale units are low compared to industry-accepted optimal levels. A certain number of vacant units are needed in any community to mitigate the cost of housing, allow for sufficient housing choices for residents, and provide an incentive for landlords and owners to maintain and repair their housing units.

The Southern California Association of Governments considers the optimal vacancy rate to range from 1.5% to 2% for owner units and 5% to 6% for multifamily units. When vacancy rates fall below these levels, residents will likely have a difficult time finding units adequately matched to their household and income needs. Additionally, as the vacancy rate drops, the steeper the competition for units will become, causing an increase in housing prices and rental rates.

According to the U.S. Census, vacancy rates are below optimal levels. In the 2000 Census, data collected by the Census Bureau for the vacancy rate for rental units in the City was calculated at 3.5%. In 2005, the vacancy data for rental units was similar at 3.3%. The story is similar in the case of for-sale housing vacancy rates. In 2000, the Census Bureau reports a for-sale unit vacancy rate of 1.8%. In 2005, the same measure registers a vacancy rate of 0.9%.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 107 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Table 23, Census Vacancy DataVACANCY RATE PERCENTAGE BY YEAR

Rental Units 3.5% 2000Rental Units 3.3% 2005

For-Sale 1.8% 2000For-Sale 0.9% 2005

Department of City Planning (2007)

Estimates of vacancy rates by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) are similar to the Census figures. The LADWP monitors electrical activity at metered apartment buildings as well as activity recorded in single-family residential meters. Inactive or idle meters over a period of time are a good indication of vacancy and this data is used as an estimate (although meters can be idle for reasons other than vacant units). Based on the LADWP, the average vacancy rate in the City of Los Angeles in 2006 was 3.9% (see table below).

During 2006, the average vacancy rate for multi-family, individually-metered housing units served by the DWP was 3.9%. This does not include data on individual units in older properties with one ‘master-meter’ for water and power. Similarly, the average vacancy rate for single-family dwelling, individually-metered housing units served by the DWP was 0.65 % (Table 3.21).

Table 24 Vacancy Rates of Metered Housing UnitsMulti-Family Units

2006 Vacancy rate 3.9%Single-Family Units

2006 Vacancy rate 0.65%Source: LADWP

Housing Conditions

Approximately two-thirds of the City’s housing units were constructed prior to 1970 and nearly a third were built prior to 1950. The advanced age of so much of the City’s housing means, naturally, a high incidence of reported problems with units. According to the 2003 American Housing Survey, approximately 10 percent of all units had moderate or severe problems, 83% of which were rental units.

Table 25, All Housing Units, 2005Year Built Estimated units

Total: 1,355,741Built 2005 or later 3,411Built 2000 to 2004 36,287Built 1990 to 1999 76,916Built 1980 to 1989 147,155Built 1970 to 1979 202,539Built 1960 to 1969 198,638Built 1950 to 1959 269,179Built 1940 to 1949 156,325Built 1939 or earlier 265,291

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 108 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCensus ACS 2005 – NOTE: ACS and Census figures on the age of housing stock rely on reported data and are not separately verified with building permit or other data.

Table 26, Reported Problems with HousingOwner Occupied Renter Occupied

Severe Problems  12,500 42,500Moderate Problems 9,500 68,100Department of City Planning (2007) Source: 2003 American Housing Survey

For rental properties, problems with the kitchen were the most reported, with plumbing, heating and electrical issues more or less evenly split. Upkeep problems were the least reported by far, though this may be because this was a catchall category for anything that did not fit into one of the others. For owner-occupied properties, plumbing problems out-numbered any other category. Kitchen problems, however, were not tracked for owner-occupied units.

Table 27, Housing Condition Details

Owner Occupied Renter OccupiedPlumbing 8,400 26,900Heating 5,200 22,100Electric 4,100 25,000Upkeep 1,100 1,000Kitchen --- 30,300Department of City Planning (2007) Source: 2003 American Housing Survey

The Housing Department implements the City’s Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP), which inspects every multifamily housing building in the City on a regular basis. From January 1998 to December 2005, the SCEP unit inspected 306,087 units, recording nearly 1.9 million violations. The vast majority of these were violations which the owner was responsible to address.

Table 28, Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP) Cycle 1 Data (January 1998 - December 2005)

 Total SCEP Inspections 306,087Owner Violations* 1,867,376Tenant-caused Violations 13,667Total Violations 1,881,043

Department of City Planning (2007) *Violations which the owner must address.

In severe cases of landlord neglect or active abuse, tenants may take advantage of the Housing Department’s Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP), which allows them to pay their rent into an escrow account controlled by LAHD. The landlord may only receive this money after demonstrating that necessary repairs have been made. From July 2001 to December 2005, 2,617 properties entered REAP. Nearly 85 percent of these were closed within this same period.

Table 29, Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP) Data (July 2001 - December 2005)New Cases 2,617Closed Cases 2207Open Cases 410

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 109 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Department of City Planning (2007)

In rare cases a landlord’s misconduct leads to a criminal prosecution by the City. From July 1999 through June 2005, the Housing Department referred 1,148 cases to the City Attorney for prosecution. Of these, 477 resulted in sentences.

2. City of Los Angeles Affordable Housing Inventory

The LAHD maintains a database of existing, affordable multi-family rental units at risk of conversion to market-rate housing due to termination of a public funding subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or other expiring use restrictions. The production of new, affordable housing, as well as the preservation of existing affordable units is crucial in maintaining a stock of affordable housing.

Los Angeles currently has 63,562 rent-restricted affordable housing units across the city in 1,826 developments, serving very low income; low income and moderate income households. The vast majority of these affordable units have been financed using a combination of private and public funds. The requirements of the public funding include maintaining the affordability for a specific number of years.

As these terms are fulfilled, the affordability of these units become at-risk of converting to market rate units and will no longer serve lower-income households. It is estimated that over the next ten years as much as one-third of this current stock - about 21,000 units - could convert to market rate prices, and displace current residents.

In the last ten years, 4,181 housing units located in 284 developments lost their affordability restrictions. The majority of these, 2,298 units had received local financing and their covenants matured. Over 1,250 units had received HUD assistance; owners prepaid their mortgages or terminated, or ‘opted-out’ of, their project-based Section 8 rental subsidy contracts. Additionally, 626 units were located in state financed properties where initial 15-year Tax Credit rental restrictions expired.

Units Expiring in 1-5 YearsAn analysis of units tracked indicates that between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2013, there are 14,594 housing units that are at-risk of terminating their housing rental subsidies or will otherwise lose their affordability restrictions through the expiration of covenants and termination of restrictions.

The majority of these, 11,402 units (78 percent), are located in buildings that received financing from the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Project-based Section 8 rental subsidies and/or are financed through FHA 221(D)(3), 221(D)(4), 236(J)(1), and 202 and 811 HUD loan subsidy programs. HUD required investors to make the units available to very low and low income households at approved rents throughout the term of the mortgage. Although the mortgages have 40-year terms, most owners are able to prepay their mortgages after 20 years. Most of these properties have now exceeded the 20-year term and have prepaid or are able to prepay their loans. Most of the Project-based Section 8 contracts (9,290 units) in the City of Los Angeles have passed the initial 20-year term and are renewing their respective contract with HUD on an annual basis. For these reasons, federally financed and assisted properties are considered at-risk.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 110 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaThere are also 3,034 units financed by the City with HOME, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond financing, local Community Redevelopment Agency housing programs and units set aside by land use concessions that will expire between 2008 and 2013. In addition, there are 158 units (1 percent) financed with state loan programs expiring in the next five years.

Units to Expire in 5-10 YearsAn analysis of units with expirations between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2018 identified 6,983 housing units that are at-risk of terminating their housing rental subsidies or that will otherwise lose their affordability restrictions. The majority of these, 4,182, are located in projects financed by the City with HOME, tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond financing, Community Redevelopment Agency housing programs or land use concessions. The remainder is comprised of 2,294 units with FHA insurance and Project-based Section 8.

The loss of 21,000 units over the next 10 years, one-third of the City’s existing affordable housing stock, would be devastating. At this time, approximately 1,000 new units of affordable housing are completed in the City every year, and most of them are not affordable to extremely low income residents such as those served by Section 8 rental subsidies.

Specific Housing Objectives (91.215 (b))

1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve over a specified time period.

2. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan.

1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives

To remain economically competitive, the city of Los Angeles must have housing that is affordable to workers with a wide range of incomes. Existing and new businesses consider the availability of workforce housing in making decisions on where to locate. In addition, businesses with goods and services to sell need consumers with discretionary income; in other words, local businesses need a population whose housing costs are not so burdensome that they can’t afford to purchase other goods and services.

However, Los Angeles has one of the lowest rates of homeownership in the country, and one of the widest gaps between income and housing costs. The statistics reveal a housing crisis for middle-income people wanting to buy homes, moderate-income families unable to afford decent housing, and poor people living in slum conditions. For these reasons, shortages of affordable housing have made Los Angeles a less desirable place for businesses to locate. For its future economic vitality, the City needs an adequate supply of housing that is affordable to all people.

But the City acknowledges that it cannot build its way out of the housing crisis. There simply is not enough supply of housing to meet ever-increasing demand. Instead, it must find ways to create synergies between its housing development and housing preservation programs, and work aggressively to both increase true rental and homeownership opportunities while at the same time preserving through diligent code enforcement and targeted rehabilitation of the City’s existing housing stock.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 111 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

LAHD must balance competing needs for scarce resources. As can be seen in the Housing Needs table, the need for assistance by the City’s low income households far exceeds the available resources. HUD’s CHAS data shows that 35,040 elderly renter households and 28,810 large related families, all with incomes below 30% of area median income, have unmet housing needs

Over the next five years, LAHD proposes to accommodate population growth through the preservation of existing rental housing, creation of Transit-Oriented Developments and workforce housing; spur housing production by removing barriers to development; prevent and end homelessness through the development of permanent supportive housing; rebuild the middle-class through the creation of homeownership opportunities; and strengthen Los Angeles neighborhoods through a coordinated design and development process that includes the community’s interests.

2. Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs in the following ways:

Affordable Rental Housing DevelopmentThe City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) was created in 2000 to provide resources to alleviate Los Angeles’ severe affordable housing shortage. The AHTF resources may be used for a variety of affordable housing development and preservation needs, including loans for predevelopment, acquisition, new construction, rehabilitation or restoration of rental housing. LAHD is also working with the Mayor’s office and other City departments to develop acquisition loan programs to support the AHTF and the Permanent Supportive Housing Program. Preservation of at-risk affordable housing is a high priority as the expiration dates of numerous properties fall within the next 10 years, as described above.

The AHTF is currently generating nearly four additional dollars to every one Trust Fund dollar. Resources expected to be available for affordable rental housing development include:

HOME and CDBG City General Fund Redevelopment tax increment Los Angeles Department of Water and Power resources for energy-efficient,

sustainable building expenses Conventional bank loans Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond finance 9% and 4% low-income housing tax credits HUD 202 and 811 programs Supportive Housing Program Shelter Plus Care and other homeless assistance programs for permanent housing Voter-approved State Proposition 1C funds for the Multifamily Housing Program

(MHP) and other state funding programs Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (AHP) Other sources as they become available

Homeownership AssistanceLAHD’s Homeownership Programs provide assistance for low- and moderate-income homebuyers wishing to purchase their first home. The Department provides a variety of

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 112 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaservices intended to augment the purchasing power of those prospective buyers. The CDBG and HOME Program-funded Purchase Assistance (PA) and Purchase Assistance with Rehabilitation (PAR) programs provide soft second loans with no payments due until the home is sold or transferred. Federal American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) program funds provide low-income buyers with cash grants. This program provides an important boost to the Department’s homeownership assistance programs.

Resources expected to be available to leverage with HOME and CDBG for homeownership assistance to first time homebuyers include: Voter-approved State Proposition 1C funds for the Building Equity and Growth in

Neighborhoods (BEGIN) program grants and CalHOME program Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond finance, provided in partnership with the

California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) and its downpayment assistance programs

Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program Municipal Housing Finance Fund, fees from tax exempt bond issuances for moderate

income buyers ineligible for HUD funds

Needs of Public Housing (91.210 (b))

In cooperation with the public housing agency or agencies located within its boundaries, describe the needs of public housing, including the number of public housing units in the jurisdiction, the physical condition of such units, the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing projects within the jurisdiction, and other factors, including the number of families on public housing and tenant-based waiting lists and results from the Section 504 needs assessment of public housing projects located within its boundaries (i.e. assessment of needs of tenants and applicants on waiting list for accessible units as required by 24 CFR 8.25). The public housing agency and jurisdiction can use the optional Priority Public Housing Needs Table (formerly Table 4) of the Consolidated Plan to identify priority public housing needs to assist in this process.

Public Housing Strategy (91.210)

1. Describe the public housing agency's strategy to serve the needs of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families residing in the jurisdiction served by the public housing agency (including families on the public housing and section 8 tenant-based waiting list), the public housing agency’s strategy for addressing the revitalization and restoration needs of public housing projects within the jurisdiction and improving the management and operation of such public housing, and the public housing agency’s strategy for improving the living environment of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate families residing in public housing.

2. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the needs of public housing and activities it will undertake to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership. (NAHA Sec. 105 (b)(11) and (91.215 (k))

3. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 113 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaprovide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such designation. (NAHA Sec. 105 (g))

Public and Assisted Housing

Table 29, HACLA Sites and Configurations

SITE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TYPEBedrooms Total

Bedroom Count

Available for Occupancy

City Council

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ramona Gardens: 2830 Lancaster Ave., L.A. 90033   22 236 178 59 495 (14)

Pueblo Del Rio: 1801 E. 53rd St., L.A. 90058   123 186 72 8 389 (9)

Rancho San Pedro: 275 W. 1st St., San Pedro 90731   96 139 45 3 1 284 (15)

William Mead: 1300 N. Cardinal, L.A. 90012   69 266 45 19 16 415 (1)

Estrada Courts: 3232 Estrada St., L.A.. 90023   74 109 26 4   213 (14)

Rose Hill Courts: 4466 Florizel St., L.A. 90032   28 48 20 4 100 (14)

Avalon Gardens: 701 E. 88th Pl., L.A. 90002   40 85 28 8 161 (9)

Gonzaque Village: 1515 E. 105th St., 90002   52 94 28 8 182 (15)

Nickerson Gardens: 1590 E. 114th St., L.A. 90059   104 634 241 73 5 1057 (15)

Pueblo Ext.: 1801 E. 53rd St., L.A. 90058   13 155 48 48 6 270 (9)

Jordan Downs: 9800 Grape St., L.A. 90002   80 254 270 61 25 690 (15)

Rancho San Pedro Ext.: 275 W. 1st St., San Pedro 90731   8 114 29 30 10 191 (15)

SITE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TYPEBedrooms

Total Bedroom

Count Available for Occupancy

City Council

0 1 2 3 4 5

Imperial Courts: 11541 Croesus St., L.A. 0 34 319 78 56 3 490 (15)

Estrada Courts Extension: 3232 Estrada St., L.A.. 90023   8 122 32 34 4 200 (14)

Mar Vista Gardens: 11965 Allin St., Culver City 90230   61 241 221 62 10 595 (11)

San Fernando Gardens 10995 Lehigh, Pacoima 91331   42 152 179 49 24 446 (7)

Dana Strand: 401 Hawaiian Ave., Wilmington 90744   71 213 92 8 384 (15)

New Pico (Pico I & II): 1526 E. 4th St., L.A. 90033   66 88 66 20 14 254 (14)

Las Casitas: 358 S. Clarence St., Los Angeles 90033     28 14     42 (14)

Aliso Village: 1202 Via Las Vegas, L. A. 90033 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (14)

PUBLIC HOUSING - SENIOR SITES                

Independent Square: 2455 S. St. Andrews Pl. L.A. 90018 60 136         196 (10)

609 California Ave Venice 90291   50         50 (11)

Gibson Manor 1501 East Century Blvd L.A. 90002   50         50 (15)

Westside Manor: 1224 S. Norton Ave., L.A. 90019 34           34 (10)

7540-7541 Simpson Ave., No. Hollywood 91605   39   3 2   44 (6)

Art Snyder Villa: 1536 Yosemite Dr., L.A. 90041   80         80 (14)

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 114 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

PUBLIC HOUSING - SCATTERED SITES                

1416 Crenshaw Blvd., L.A. 90019       3     3 (10)

2927 Partridge Ave., L.A. 90039     2 3     5 (13)

14753 Delano St., Van Nuys 91411     1 1 1   3 (6)

14743 Friar St., Van Nuys 91411     1 1 1   3 (6)

14311 Haynes St., Van Nuys 91401     1 1 1   3 (6)

6114 Hazelhurst Pl., No. Hollywood 91606   2 4     6 (2) 11218 Emelita St., No. Hollywood 91606       3     3 (4) 11442 Emelita St., No. Hollywood 91606       3     3 (4) 5737 Klump Ave., No. Hollywood 91601       3 3 (4) 11818 Vanowen St., No. Hollywood 91605       7     7 (2) 6900 & 6910 Morella Ave., No. Hollywood 91605       7     7 (6) 11736 Hart St., No. Hollywood 91605       1     1 (6) 11740 Hart St., No. Hollywood 91605       2     2 (6) 11737 Hart St., No. Hollywood 91605       3     3 (6) 6923 Simpson Ave., No. Hollywood 91605       3     3 (6) 11913 Runnymede St., No. Hollywood 91605     3 2 1   6 (6) 8325 Penfield Ave., Canoga Park 91306     2 2 1   5 (12) 14145 Calvert St., Van Nuys 91401     4       4 (6) 6615 Lemp Ave., No. Hollywood 91606     4       4 (2) 6530 Vineland Ave., No. Hollywood 91606     14 8 8   30 (2) 1158 E. Adams Blvd., L.A. 90011       3 3 (9) 145 E. 54th St., L.A. 90011       3     3 (9) 1059 E. 48th St., L.A. 90011       3     3 (9) 215 E. 93rd St., L.A. 90003       3     3 (9) 685 E. 43rd St., L.A. 90011       3     3 (9) 4331 Honduras St., L.A. 90011       3     3 (9) 3206 S. Naomi Ave., L.A. 90001       3     3 (9) 210 W. 91st St., L.A. 90003       3     3 (8) 1100 & 1100 1/2 E. 112th St., L.A. 90059     2       2 (15) 1613 & 1613 1/2E. 41st Pl. L.A. 90011       2     2 (9) 110 & 110 1/2 E. 94th St., L.A. 90003       2     2 (8) 245 & 245 1/2 E. 102nd St., L.A. 90003       2     2 (8) 1539 & 1539 1/2 E. 57th St., L.A. 90011       2     2 (9) 216 & 216 1/2 E. 87th Pl., L.A. 90003       2     2 (9) 354 & 354 1/2 E. 105th St., L.A. 90003       2     2 (8) 339 & 339 1/2 E. 107th St., L.A. 90003       2     2 (8) 1565 & 1565 1/2 E. 43rd St., L.A. 90011       2     2 (9) 1330 W. 57th St., L.A. 90037       3 4   7 (9) 2326 Ridgeley Dr., L.A. 90016       8     8 (10) 563 W. 92nd St., L.A. 90044       7 2   9 (8) 205 Opp St., Wilmington 90744       6     6 (15) 207 Opp St., Wilmington 90744       1 2   3 (15) 3814 Montclair St., L.A. 90018       2 1   3 (10) 3910 Montclair St., L.A. 90018       3 1   4 (10) 744 N. Tularosa Rd., L.A. 90026       5 2  7 (13)

TOTALS 94 1356 3510 1842 523 177 7502

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 115 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaHACLA’s Agency Plan includes the Capital Fund Program (CFP) Annual Statement and Five-Year Plan. The Annual Statement details the work to be carried out in the plan year using funds allocated to HACLA via a nationwide formula. Most of these funds will be used for capital construction projects. Those projects include continuation of comprehensive modernization at three public housing communities: Pueblo Del Rio Extension, Estrada Courts Extension, and San Fernando Gardens. Other major work includes replacing windows at the William Mead Homes community, east of downtown.

Table 30, Comprehensive Modernization Activities

Proposed Activities for the Next Five years

CAL No Development Site Number of Units To Be Completed

Proposed Construction Time Frame

       

415 Pueblo Del Rio Extension 5 Jan 2007 - Dec 2008

420 Estrada Courts Extension 12 Sept 2006 - Dec 2007

422 San Fernando Gardens 140 Jan 2007 - Dec 2008

  TOTAL PROPOSED UNITS: 157  

HACLA is required by HUD to make periodic assessments of the needs for capital improvements and to submit them as part of its annual Agency Plan, which is an installment of the PHA five-year plan for capital projects. This document indicates to HUD what specific capital projects will be funded from the next CFP grant and what projects are planned for the four years following. HACLA projects receiving $17.5 million in its federal fiscal year (FFY) 2008 CFP grant.

HACLA is also required by HUD regulations to use CFP funds to address the most pressing capital improvements needs first and specifically to address handicapped accessibility in units, to reduce hazards from lead-based paint and improve energy efficiency.

HACLA must maintain its public housing units in decent, safe and sanitary condition. HACLA conducts preventive maintenance inspection of all its units twice a year. Units are also subject to periodic inspections by HUD. HACLA is required to track its maintenance work orders (tenants phone in work orders to a centralized work order center) and to report to HUD on turn around times for various categories of work.

HUD has consistently found HACLA’s units to be well maintained and HACLA’s performance on turn around of maintenance requests to meet standards. However, HACLA foresees challenges to maintaining its properties because of subsidy cuts implemented through the new operating fund rule.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 116 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaTable 31,

Priority Public Housing NeedsLocal Jurisdiction

Public Housing Need Category PHA Priority Need LevelHigh, Medium, Low,

No Such Need

Estimated Dollars To Address

Restoration and RevitalizationCapital Improvements High $616,552,840ModernizationRehabilitationOther (Specify)504 Accommodations High $31,338,860

Management and Operations High $58,755,477 (FY 2007)

Improved Living EnvironmentNeighborhood Revitalization (non-capital)Capital ImprovementsSafety/Crime Prevention/Drug Elimination High $39,546,919.98

Other (Specify)

Economic OpportunityResident Services/ Family Self Sufficiency High $5,189,765

Other (Specify)

Total

HACLA also may propose a tenant in place change in subsidies (HUD’s official term is disposition) of one or more of the large family developments listed above, which constitute all of the Authority’s sites containing nearly 400 or more units. This would be done as a means of advancing the redevelopment of public housing in the south or east sides of the city. All of the large Watts developments are distressed with high crime rates, and past renovation efforts have failed to bring about the necessary improvement in living conditions. By taking this step, the HACLA will be able to generate additional revenue for citywide redevelopment. All of the developments listed above present substantial challenges in terms of current conditions; HACLA would determine which, if any of these sites to propose based on further financial and feasibility analysis and resident consultation. It is envisioned that redevelopment will triple the number of housing units now available, including full one-for-one replacement of the public housing units as well as market-rate rental units and a sizable component of workforce homeownership units. Additional possibilities include retail and educational/workforce redevelopment components.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 117 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaUpon approval for the disposition of one or more of the sites listed above to one of HACLA’s instrumentalities, HACLA would be entitled to request additional vouchers with respect to all eligible units. HACLA then would seek to fulfill all requirements necessary to project-base vouchers at that site or sites. In this manner, current residents of the site or sites will be fully protected and after one year of occupancy, may stay or accept tenant-based vouchers if they choose to do so.

The use of project-based vouchers at one or more of these sites would provide a substantial additional revenue stream, estimated at several million dollars annually that HACLA would use for resident programs or extraordinary maintenance, or in connection with redevelopment. HACLA could use these funds for initial redevelopment planning and architectural expenses, as well as land acquisition and construction costs. This additional funding source will be needed, in conjunction with many other resources such as Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), City of L.A. Housing Trust Fund (HTF), Tax Increment Financing (TIF), public housing Replacement Housing Factor funds and others, to make a redevelopment effort of this magnitude a reality.

Activity Description Number of Days After HUD Approval

Notify residents of program approval - including explanation of change in subsidies Immediate after program approval

Disposition and subsidy change Promptly upon receipt and preliminary processing of the necessary vouchers

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) will consider the option of proposing disposition of 2 of its public housing portfolios – scattered and senior sites totaling 43 HUD project numbers consisting of 51 properties and 651 units. Under the Scattered portfolio, the following sites are being considered for disposition from the public housing inventory:

Table 32, Units Considered for Disposition from Public Housing Inventory

HUD Project #Site Name Site Address # Units

CA004039 1100 & 1100 1/2 E. 112th St. 1100 & 1100 1/2 E. 112th St., L.A. 90059 2

CA004053 Vanowen - Morella11818 Vanowen St., N. Hollywood 91605 76900/6910 Morella Ave., N. Hollywood 91605 7

CA004054 Delano, Friar, Haynes, Hazelhurst

14753 Delano St., Van Nuys 91411 3

14743 Friar St., Van Nuys 91411 3

14311 Haynes St., Van Nuys 91401 3

6114 Hazelhurst Pl., N. Hollywood 91606 7

CA004059 1416 Crenshaw Blvd. 1416 Crenshaw Blvd., L.A. 90019 3

CA004060 2927 Partridge Ave. 2927 Partridge Ave., L.A. 90039 5

CA004062 1613 & 1613 1/2 E. 41st Pl. 1613 & 1613 1/2 E. 41st Pl., L.A. 90011 2

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 118 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

HUD Project #Site Name Site Address # Units

CA004063 11218 Emelita St. 11218 Emelita St., N. Hollywood 91601 3

CA004064 11442 Emelita St., 11442 Emelita St., N. Hollywood 91601 3

CA004065 110 & 110 1/2 E. 94th St. 110 & 110 1/2 E. 94th St., L.A. 90003 2

CA004067 5737 Klump Ave. 5737 Klump Ave., N. Hollywood 91601 3

CA004068 245 & 245 1/2 E. 102nd St. 245 & 245 1/2 E. 102nd St., L.A. 90003 2

CA004072 1565 & 1565 1/2 E. 43rd St. 1565 & 1565 1/2 E. 43rd St., L.A. 90011 2

CA004073 1539 & 1539 1/2 E. 57th St. 1539 & 1539 1/2 E. 57th St., L.A. 90011 2

CA004074 216 & 216 1/2 E. 87th Pl. 216 & 216 1/2 E. 87th Pl., L.A. 90003 2

CA004075 14145 Calvert St. 14145 Calvert St., Van Nuys 91401 4

CA004077 8325 Penfield Ave. 8325 Penfield Ave., Canoga Park 91306 5

CA004078 11913 Runnymede St. 11913 Runnymede St., N. Hollywood 91605 6

CA004079 6615 Lemp Ave. 6615 Lemp Ave., N. Hollywood 91606 4

CA004080 11737 Hart St. 11737 Hart St., N. Hollywood 91605 3

CA004081 11736 & 11740 Hart St. 11736 & 11740 Hart St., N. Hollywood 91605 3

CA004082 6923 Simpson Ave. 6923 Simpson Ave., N. Hollywood 91605 3

CA004088 354 & 354 1/2 E. 105th Pl. 354 & 354 1/2 E. 105th Pl., L.A. 90003 2

CA004097 339 & 339 1/2 E. 107th St. 339 & 339 1/2 E. 107th St., L.A. 90003 2

CA004098 1714 & 1714 1/2 E. 111th Pl. 1714 & 1714 1/2 E. 111th Pl., L.A. 90059 2

CA004102 6530 Vineland Ave. 6530 Vineland Ave., N. Hollywood 91606 30

CA004137 1158 E. Adams Blvd. 1158 E. Adams Blvd., L.A. 90011 3

CA004138 145 E. 54th St. 145 E. 54th St., L.A. 90011 3

CA004139 1059 E. 48th St. 1059 E. 48th St., L.A. 90011 3

CA004141 215 E. 93rd St 215 E. 93rd St., L.A. 90003 3

CA004142 685 E. 43rd St. 685 E. 43rd St., L.A. 90011 3

CA004143 4331 Honduras St. 4331 Honduras St., L.A. 90011 3

CA004144 3206 Naomi Ave. 3206 Naomi Ave., L.A. 90011 3

CA004145 210 W. 91st St. 210 W. 91st St., L.A. 90003 3

CA004170 57th & Ridgley 1330 W. 57th St., L.A. 90037 7

2326 Ridgeley Dr., L.A. 90016 8

CA004181 744 N. Tularosa Rd., L.A. 744 N. Tularosa Rd., L.A. 90026 7

CA004182 Montclairs 3814 Montclair St., L.A. 90018 3

3910 Montclair St., L.A. 90018 4

CA004183 205/207 Opp St. 205/207 Opp St., Wilmington 90744 9

CA004184 563 W. 92nd St. 563 W. 92nd St., L.A. 90044 9

The senior sites being considered for disposition are the following:

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 119 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

HUD Project # Site Name Site Address # Units

CA004026A Independent Square 2455 S. St. Andrews Pl., L.A. 90018 196

CA004028 Scattered Sites (California Apts & Gibson Manor)

609 California Ave., Venice 90291 50

1501 E. Century Blvd., L.A. 90002 50

CA004038 Westside Manor 1224 S. Norton Ave., L.A. 90019 34

CA004046 Simpson Saticoy ** 7541 Simpson Ave., N. Hollywood 91605 40

7540 Simpson Ave., N. Hollywood 91605 5

CA004048 Arthur K. Snyder Villa 1536 Yosemite Dr., L.A. 90041 80

** Simpson Saticoy consists of a senior building with 40 units and across the street a 5-unit townhouse building with family units. The 40 unit building will remain with the senior portfolio and the 5 units building will join the scattered portfolio.

With the reduction of public housing subsidy to support the continued operations of these properties as public housing, the most viable way to maintain these properties as affordable housing is to transfer title of them to one of the HACLA’s instrumentalities. By operating outside of the public housing program, these sites will be able to access funding sources not currently available under the public housing program.

In the case of the senior portfolio, if continued to operate under the public housing funding environment, not only would the every day front line costs not be covered, but also the ability to address any extraordinary or deferred maintenance would be impossible. Even over a short period of time, this lack of funding would lead to a deterioration of the properties and threaten not only the safety of the residents, but the availability of affordable housing in the city.

Once the new operating formula is fully implemented, the HACLA estimates an overall annual loss of over $4.7 million. While the scattered sites are currently financially viable, they will not be under the new funding formula. By making them market-rate, non-public housing available to voucher-holders, we will be able to leverage them to generate revenue to support the remaining public housing inventory.

To preserve affordability, the HACLA will provide to the residents in the scattered site units a tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher, which they can use in place or they can relocate using the voucher in the private rental market. The residents in the senior portfolio also will be provided voucher resources so that they will be able to remain in place. It is anticipated that their units would be covered by project-based vouchers, subject to fulfillment of all HUD requirements for project-basing of those units, and in that case they will be offered project-based vouchers. If residents from either portfolio wish to remain in the public housing program, they can request a transfer to one of the large public housing developments remaining in the inventory. Upon approval of the disposition activity, the HACLA will notify residents both in writing and through meetings of the change in the property status and request from them their preference to either remain in place or relocate. Any relocation to a public housing location will be paid for by the HACLA.

The timetable for disposition activity is proposed as the following:

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 120 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaActivity Description Number of Days After HUD Approval

Notify residents of program approval – including notifying residents of relocation options Immediate after program approval

Begin any relocation of any residents wishing to continue to live in public housing 30 days following notification to residents

Disposition Promptly upon completion of any relocation to public housing

2. Section 3

HACLA made resident employment a key component of its Comprehensive Modernization program even before Section 3 of the HUD Act was amended in 1995. HACLA has partnered with trade unions to train and employ public housing residents in the construction field, with some residents moving on to independent employment in the private sector. HACLA has an active Section 3 program to assure maximum participation in hiring of residents, and view HUD’s Section 3 mandate -- to foster local economic development, neighborhood improvement, and individual self-sufficiency -- in its construction activities as a key part of its overall mission. In addition to providing opportunities in the construction trades, the Authority provides employment opportunities in related activities such as relocation counseling, packing and moving of resident possessions, and site security for construction projects.

Resident Management Corporations (RMCs)To develop economic self-sufficiency and build leadership capacity, HACLA has contracts with several of its Resident Management Corporations (non-profits formed by the elected representatives of public housing residents.) Most of these contracts are for ancillary services related to redevelopment or modernization of the public housing stock, such as security, moving or cleaning.

HACLA Resident Leadership and Citywide Services: AccomplishmentsHACLA works to ensure that residents of public housing throughout the city of Los Angeles have equal access to effective employment and training programs. These initiatives are provided through HACLA’s Workforce Development and Community Services unit.

Various grants and contracts through the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Los Angeles Community Development Department (CDD), and the Los Angeles County Department of Senior and Community Services provide funding for these programs. For example, in 2006-07, the following took place:

Activities

87 individuals residing in and around public housing were placed into permanent unsubsidized employment during 2006 meeting its contractual obligation at 124%.

HACLA traditionally serves the most difficult to serve yet maintained the lowest citywide placement rate at a cost of $2,993 per placement.

70% of HACLA's 87 Adult customers obtained an occupational credential. 85% of Adult program participants were employed after program participation. After participating in HACLA's Workforce Development programs customers

increased their income by an average of $5,338.  WIA Adult Dislocated (DW) Employment and Training

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 121 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

40 dislocated individuals residing in and around public housing were placed into permanent unsubsidized employment.

HACLA maintained the lowest citywide dislocated placement rate at a cost of $2,905 per placement.

100% of HACLA's 40 dislocated customers obtained an occupational credential. HACLA's dislocated workers earned an average of 122% of their pre-layoff salary. 82% of DW program participants were employed after program participation.

 Summer Youth EmploymentPublic housing youth were employed at various governmental and non-profit agencies throughout the city of Los Angeles, specifically: 

100 public housing youth were employed for approximately 200 hours during summer months funded through the Los Angeles Community Development Department.

200 public housing youth were employed for approximately 200 hours in the summer months funded by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) through their General Fund.

200 public housing youth were employed using money received from HACLA discretionary funds.

 Universal ServicesUniversal access services are services available at the service centers with no appointment necessary. Residents are able to use computers, printers, internet, phone, fax, copier, open a free email account, and receive limited staff assistance.

3,996 residents used services at the centers Specialized Training OpportunitiesHACLA partnered with the South Bay Center for Counseling to provide a unique opportunity for residents to obtain hi-tech training and employment with local oil refineries. Partners to this unique collaboration include Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum and Conoco Phillips with LA Harbor College as the training entity.  

6 residents completed classroom training and 4 have been offered employment as Process Technicians with a starting wage of $70,000 including overtime. The remaining three are in the interview process.

15 residents completed Turn Around Worker/Safety Attendant training at Los Angeles Harbor College.

12 of the 15 have been placed into employment with Timech. Additionally, 14 residents will start Safety Attendant Training as their first step in

this Process Technician Career Ladder program.   HUD ROSS Grants

132 residents received training in the construction, transportation, and medical fields.

 Los Angeles County WIA Limited English Speaking Program HACLA also offers intensive case management and specialized training to individuals with limited English speaking skills.

17 individuals were enrolled

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 122 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California 17 completed C.N.A. training 17 passed the state exam 15 are employed as Certified Nursing Assistants

 **All employment referenced above is permanent and non-subsidized. Employment Technology Centers

HACLA’s Employment Technology Centers (ETC) are a combination of existing Community Service Centers and Computer Learning Centers. These newly named centers offer a combination of social services, individual and family development, educational related activities, computer education, probation intervention programming, community events as well as employment and training opportunities offered through the Workforce Investment Act program. Four of the Employment Technology Centers (San Fernando Gardens, Ramona Gardens, Mar Vista Gardens, Jordan Downs, and Imperial Courts) offer entrance into the WorkSource center service continuum providing a host of employment related services.  The 11 ETC centers are all located on public housing property. Sites include: Avalon Gardens, Imperial Courts, Independent Square, Jordan Downs, Mar Vista Gardens, Nickerson Gardens, Pueblo del Rio, Ramona Gardens, Rose Hills Courts, San Fernando Gardens and William Mead Homes.  The ETC service design allows leveraging of resources and combination of efforts to help promote a comprehensive service design. The ETC operates using a combination of in-kind and funding streams including: Housing Based Day Supervision under the auspices of the LA County Department of Probation, DOL WIA funds allocated locally through the Community Development Department, HUD ROSS Grants, and HACLA operating funds.  Noteworthy events and activities include:

20 Job Fairs and recruitments were held throughout all public housing sites. Companies such as Securitas, MTA, TSA, UPS, and Shoe Warehouse were on site to hire over 64 youth and adults.

Various trips and outings were provided to program participants including: 200 senior residents to Descanso Gardens and 91 youth and adults to financial literacy workshop to Universal Studios auditorium.

Over 275 youth participate weekly in UCLA's Lets Read, Project Literacy and Project Numeracy. 100 youth also are bused weekly to UCLA for one on one tutoring.

Job Shadowing - Approximately 45 youth participated in job shadowing and mentoring activities this year.

Summer Youth Employment - 500 youth were provided with meaningful work during summer months along with workshops in employment preparation and college awareness.

135 customers were enrolled into the WorkSource Center with over 90% placed into permanent, unsubsidized employment.

Language Services Unit

Accomplishments include:

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 123 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Translating and editing approximately documents of varying length for various

HACLA programs Completing and coordinating translation of documents into languages such as

Cambodian, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, and Armenian Providing simultaneous and consecutive interpretation for meetings, including

HACLA Board, Resident Advisory Council/Resident Management Council, and other HACLA meetings

Coordinating interpretation services for RMC/RAC monthly meetings

Section 8 Homeownership

In October 2000, HUD rules changed by allowing housing authorities to exercise the option under Section 8 regulations (24 CFR 982.625) and allow families the use of Section 8 vouchers for homeownership. The basic concept is that Instead of using voucher subsidy to help families with rent, the program allows first-time homeowner to use their voucher subsidy to meet monthly homeownership expenses.

In order to participate in the program, clients must meet the following eligibility requirements: be a current Section 8 participant enrolled in HACLA’s Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program, or be a recent FSS participant eligible for transitional supportive services, or be a current Section 8 participant who is elderly or disabled, or be a current resident of a HACLA Public Housing unit who is participating in the HUD – Resident Opportunity Supportive Services (ROSS) Homeownership Supportive Services Program, or be a household displaced by the action of a government agency or school district. Eligible participants are also required to attend a pre-purchase first-time home buyer counseling program approved by HACLA and be issued a certificate of completion, to meet the minimum income and employment requirements (employment requirements are not applicable for elderly or disabled), to have minimum FICO score of 620, to attend a post-purchase workshop, and not have an outstanding debt with HACLA or any other Housing Authority.

Qualified participants are responsible for obtaining their own financing subject to HACLA’S approval, meeting all lenders’ requirements, locating a property (single family residence, townhouse, condominium, etc.) of their choice that meets the program standards within HACLA’s jurisdiction. HACLA will determine the maximum Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) to the family based on the Payment Standards and use the HAP amount toward the monthly homeownership cost, which includes principal and interest, real estate taxes and public assessments on the home, hazard insurance, homeowner association dues or maintenance fees if any, and the utility allowance according to the HACLA’s utility schedule. The Family is responsible for all homeownership expenses not covered by the HAP payment.

If homeownership expenses exceed the payment standard, the family pays the difference out-of-pocket in addition to the Total Tenant Payment (TTP). The total monthly homeownership expenses shall not exceed 60% of the family’s adjusted monthly income at the time of the purchase.

Since the program's inception in 2000, HACLA has successfully assisted 47 clients become homeowners. Of the 47, 10 have achieved self-sufficiency and opted out of the program. Two participants are currently in the Homeownership process. At present, the average HAP for Homeownership participant is $726, and 49% of the homeowners have purchased condominiums. The purchase prices have ranged from $95,200 to $399,000.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 124 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

The Section 8 Homeownership Program is working to expand current partnerships with lending institutions, certified Homebuyer Education providers, Individual Development Account/Empowerment Programs, and private agencies to provide resources to eligible program families. While each family selects the home that will meet their individual needs and requirements, HACLA continues to market and inform approved families of affordable housing choices throughout the City of Los Angeles area.

To participate in the Section 8 Homeownership Program, a family must be a first-time homebuyer, which means that no family member can have been an owner for at least 3 years before receiving ownership assistance; and no one may have an interest in another home. The family must have an annual household income of at least $15,600. Welfare and SSI income will be counted toward the minimum income requirement for elderly and disabled families only, but no one else. Except for the elderly or disabled, the family also must have at least one adult household member who has been continuously employed full-time for a year before the start of homeownership assistance.

HACLA manages and maintains a diverse affordable housing portfolio:

HACLA - Total Units Available for Occupancy: 6-30-2007

Category Total Dwelling Units

Senior Housing-Public Housing 455

Senior Housing-S8NC/PBA* 790

Senor Housing-Unsubsidized 394

Family Housing-Public Housing 6,952

Family Housing-S8NC/PBA 35

Family Housing-Unsubsidized 355

Family Housing-LIHTC** 32

TOTAL 9,080

* S8NC/PBA – Section 8 New Construction/Project-Based Assistance** LIHTC – Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

Barriers to Affordable Housing (91.210 (e) and 91.215 (f))

1. Explain whether the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve affordable housing are affected by public policies, particularly those of the local jurisdiction. Such policies include tax policy affecting land and other property, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and policies that affect the return on residential investment.

2. Describe the strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing, except that, if a State requires a unit of general local government to submit a regulatory barrier assessment that is substantially equivalent to the information required under this part, as determined by HUD, the unit of general local government may submit that

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 125 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaassessment to HUD and it shall be considered to have complied with this requirement.

The most critical barriers to the production and preservation of affordable housing include: Current available financial resources are insufficient to address affordable housing

needs. Housing units with supportive services are lacking especially for the homeless, frail

elderly, mobility impaired, and other special needs populations. Many city residents face insufficient income AND a high cost of living. The City housing stock has an average age of 45 years or more, and there are

units in poor condition, that are a hazard to their occupants, even with systematic code enforcement.

The City’s stock of existing subsidized housing units is severely threatened by ex-piring use restrictions

Housing Discrimination The federally established rents for Section 8 are too low in many areas and holders

of Section 8 vouchers cannot find any landlord who will rent to them.

The supply, distribution, and cost of housing in Los Angeles is affected by local, state and federal land use regulations and environmental laws established over the years as a result of public and private pressure. The current shortage of affordable housing inventory is exacerbated by high land and construction costs arising, in part, from these governmental regulations. Los Angeles is now nearly built-out and there is a shortage of appropriately zoned and suitably sized vacant land for affordable multi-family development.

Local and state building codes affect the cost and nature of residential development. Interim Control Ordinances (ICOs) often impose a temporary moratorium on most or all development, further restricting the supply of land available for housing development or redevelopment.

This section examines the effect of the following governmental regulations on development: specific plans, development standards, permit processing procedures, interim control ordinances, and historic designations. Table 30 is a summary of those factors that may serve as barriers to construction of new single-family and multi-family housing.

Table 30 - Summary - Barriers to Affordable Housing

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 126 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

TYPE OF BARRIER CONDITION CAUSING BARRIER PROVISIONS TO REMOVE BARRIERS

Specific Plans 37 Specific plans citywide impose a wide variety of conditions on development

Some plans include requirements or incentives for development of affordable housing

Development Standards

85% of land zoned single family

15% of land zoned multi-family

Multifamily allowed by right in RW2,R2,RD2,RD3,RD4, RD5, RD6, R3,R4,R5,CR, C1,C1.5,C2,C4,C4,and CM.

Accessory units (‘granny flats’) allowed but need approval of Zoning Administrator

Mixed residential and commercial use allowed in commercial zones by right

RMP zone allows residential mobile home parks General Plan Framework directs higher density

housing to transit corridors and underused commercial strips

Adaptive Reuse Ordinance to create housing in old commercial buildings

Parking Requirements

One parking space for a single-family dwelling and each three habitable rooms. Two parking spaces for a unit with more than three habitable rooms

Parking reductions for senior housing and for affordable housing in areas near public transportation

Open Space Requirements Necessary but may be a constraint

Permit Processing Many complaints from developers about time required.

Permit Streamlining Act. Sets maximum time periods for discretionary approvals

Land Division Regulations

Time consuming, may include assessments for street, condo projects require a lengthy Planning Department review

None

Historic Districts

Preserve cultural historic resources and maintain affordability but impede development and lengthen the development review process

None

Interim Control Ordinance Temporarily stop or reduce development Not a permanent barrier

Amendments to the Uniform Building Code

Amendments for seismic strengthening of masonry and stone veneer, for glazing and anchoring and strengthening of elements to resist Santa Ana winds, heavy rains, floods and fires.

Necessary for safety but may increase costs

Department of City Planning (2007)

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

A new Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) study for the City of Los Angeles was completed in March 2006, as required by HUD. It was designed to (a) identify obstacles that certain persons and population groups face when trying to access decent, affordable housing, (b) assess the extent to which these obstacles are a factor in the City’s housing market, and (c) make recommendations for actions that the City can take to remedy the impediments.

Particular themes that emerged in the study include:

Housing and Household Characteristics: Discrimination faced by various population groups;

Access to Financing: Particular concerns expressed about predatory lending. Public Policies: Concerns about local programs, regulations, and coordination

which can create barriers to fair housing choice.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 127 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Fair Housing Services: Concerns about the existing capacity of agencies in Los

Angeles to serve all residents.

In Program Year 2008-09, LAHD will complete an action plan to address the identified impediments. This may result in proposals for new programs and other activities.

Land Use and Zoning Changes to Remove Barriers and Facilitate Housing Production

A multi-year effort by LAHD and the City Planning Department resulted in the enactment of Ordinance No. 177325, effective March 17, 2006. It made four amendments to the Land Use & Zoning Code to bring the City into compliance with fair housing laws, including 1) adoption of a Reasonable Accommodations procedure to allow individuals with disabilities, or developers of housing for people with disabilities, to request flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or policies when needed to eliminate barriers to housing; and 2) the change in the definition of family to remove the restriction that only five or fewer unrelated persons could live together in a single-family zoned area.

Even though the City had not enforced its out-of-date zoning code language for many years, LAHD insisted, and the City Planning Department agreed, that it was important to remove any potential for misinterpretation or discrimination in the future from the City’s zoning code. Much of the legal work on this project was performed by a legal subject expert on contract with LAHD, paid for by CDBG administrative funds allocated via a competitive request for qualifications (RFQ).

Adaptive Re-Use Ordinance

The City of Los Angeles created incentives to facilitate reuse of pre-1974 historic downtown buildings for residential and work facilities in 1999. The adaptive reuse ordinance provides a number of zoning and building code incentives. Building on the success of the downtown Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, similar ordinances were adopted for Chinatown, Lincoln Heights, Hollywood, South LA, and Mid-Wilshire. A variation of these ordinances was also adopted to apply citywide. These ordinances have produced over 5,000 units of newly permitted housing units in buildings that had previously been abandoned commercial structures. Additionally, there are currently several thousand units in the design and development stage throughout the City.

HOMELESS

Homeless Needs (91.205 (b) and 91.215 (c))

Please also refer to the Homeless Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook

Homeless Needs— The jurisdiction must provide a concise summary of the nature and extent of homelessness in the jurisdiction, (including rural homelessness and chronic homelessness where applicable), addressing separately the need for facilities and services for homeless persons and homeless families with children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and homeless subpopulations, in accordance with Table 1A. The summary must include the characteristics and needs of low-income individuals and children, (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered. In addition, to the extent information is available, the plan must

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 128 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiainclude a description of the nature and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group. A quantitative analysis is not required. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates.

Homeless Needs

During the period of January 23-25, 2007, LAHSA, in conjunction with Applied Survey Research (ASR), conducted the 2007 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count. This homeless census was the second of its kind conducted by LAHSA and ASR, following the 2005 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, and was again in 2007 the largest such census conducted in the nation. Due to the large size of Los Angeles County it was necessary to conduct the enumeration over a period of three days. Three SPAs per day were enumerated on January 23 and 24, and two SPAs were enumerated on January 25. The data presented in the 2005 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count provided a baseline of the number and characteristics of homeless people in LA County. The Continuum includes all cities and unincorporated areas within Los Angeles County, with the exception of the cities of Glendale, Long Beach, and Pasadena.

The 2007 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count was performed by using HUD-recommended protocols for counting homeless persons and estimating the number of people who are homeless at a particular point in time and over the course of a year. The Homeless Count has five components: (1) Street Count; (2) Shelter and Institution Count; (3) Homeless Demographic Survey, (4) General Population Telephone Survey, and (5) Statistical Projection.

This comprehensive study found that in the City of Los Angeles, on any given day, there are an estimated 40,144 homeless people. Approximately 14% of these, or 5,694, are children under the age of 18. There are 3,443 families with 4,854 youth in families. Over the course of a year, there are estimated to be 73,489 homeless people, including 6,134 families with 8,558 children.

Skid Row reported the greatest concentration of homeless persons at 5,131. The following figures provide overall census results for the City.

City of Los Angeles Overall Census Results: Point-in-Time and Annual Projection

 

Number of Homeless Persons

2007 2005

Number of People on One Night (Point-in-Time) 40,144 48,103Number of People per Year (Annual Projection) 73,489 130,362

Figure 1: City of Los Angeles Subpopulations Census Results: Point-in-Time and Annual Projections

Subpopulation

Point-in-Time Results Annual Projections

2007 2005 2007 2005Sheltered 7,794 6,774 15,268 18,358

Unsheltered 32,350 41,329 58,222 112,002

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 129 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Adult Men 24,172 26,811 44,624 72,657

Adult Women 9,598 11,233 17,598 30,441

Adult Transgender1 680 602 1,205 1,630

Total Youth (Under Age 18) 5,694 9,458 10,062 25,632

Age 18-24 2,959 3,942 5,412 10,682

Age 25-55 26,226 30,452 48,172 82,525

Age 56+ 5,265 4,251 9,844 11,520

Black/African American 23,451 22,849 44,627 61,921

Hispanic or Latino 6,641 9,765 11,759 26,463

White 7,204 12,026 12,132 32,590

Multi-Racial and Other 2,848 3,463 4,971 9,386

# Individual Families w/ Children 3,443 4,439 6,134 12,029

# People in Families 9,238 13,973 16,336 37,867

Youth in Families 4,854 8,614 8,558 23,343

Youth in Families Age 5 or Younger 2,119 N/A 3,784 N/A

Veterans 5,338 8,851 9,562 23,986

Chronically Homeless 13,680 18,945 14,820 26,144

Mentally Ill 15,012 17,077 27,166 46,277

Substance Abusers2 15,223 22,079 28,143 59,835

People with HIV/AIDS 949 N/A 1,698 N/A

Victims of Domestic Violence 4,268 4,425 7,966 11,993

Unaccompanied Youth 840 845 1,504 2,289LAHSA (2007)1 In 2005, the “Adult Transgender” category also includes people who declined to state their gender on the survey.2 Question wording was changed in 2007 to ask about alcohol/drug abuse rather than alcohol/drug use.Note: Different annualized methodologies were used in 2005 and 2007. The 2007 methodology utilizes the HUD methodology published in 2006.

Priority Homeless Needs

1. Using the results of the Continuum of Care planning process, identify the jurisdiction's homeless and homeless prevention priorities specified in Table 1A, the Homeless and Special Needs Populations Chart. The description of the jurisdiction's choice of priority needs and allocation priorities must be based on reliable data meeting HUD standards and should reflect the required consultation with homeless assistance providers, homeless persons, and other concerned citizens regarding the needs of homeless families with children and individuals. The jurisdiction must provide an analysis of how the needs of each category of residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority homeless need category. A separate brief narrative should be directed to addressing gaps in services and housing for the sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless.

2. A community should give a high priority to chronically homeless persons, where the jurisdiction identifies sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless persons in its Homeless Needs Table - Homeless Populations

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 130 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaand Subpopulations.

Homeless and Special Needs Populations

Continuum of Care: Housing Gap Analysis Chart

Current Inventory

Under Development

Unmet Need/Gap

Individuals

Example Emergency Shelter 100 40 26Emergency Shelter 2,789 0 302

Beds Transitional Housing 3,608 281 5,664Permanent Supportive Housing 3,486 684 17,860Total 9,883 965 23,826

Persons in Families With ChildrenEmergency Shelter 846 0 1,464

Beds Transitional Housing 2,126 20 1,569Permanent Supportive Housing 1,474 363 2,870Total 4,446 383 5,903

Continuum of Care: Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart

Part 1: Homeless Population Sheltered Unsheltered TotalEmergency Transitional

Number of Families with Children (Family Households): 134 337 2,972 3,443

1. Number of Persons in Families with Children 471 1,119 7,648 9,238

2. Number of Single Individuals and Persons in Households without children 3,589 2,615 24,702 30,906

(Add Lines Numbered 1 & 2 Total Persons) 4,060 3,734 32,350 40,144

Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations Sheltered Unsheltered Total

a. Chronically Homeless 1,053 12,627 13,680b. Seriously Mentally Ill 2,687 12,325 15,012c. Chronic Substance Abuse 1,629 13,594 15,223d. Veterans 1,116 4,222 5,338e. Persons with HIV/AIDS 200 749 949f. Victims of Domestic Violence 700 3,568 4,268g. Unaccompanied Youth (Under 18) 166 674 840

LAHSA (2007)

Homeless Inventory (91.210 (c))

The jurisdiction shall provide a concise summary of the existing facilities and services (including a brief inventory) that assist homeless persons and families with children and subpopulations identified in Table 1A. These include outreach and assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, access to permanent housing, and activities to prevent low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) from becoming homeless. The jurisdiction can use the optional Continuum of Care

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 131 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaHousing Activity Chart and Service Activity Chart to meet this requirement.

Inventory Summary The following tables summarize the inventory of beds and services for homeless individuals and families in the City of Los Angeles.

Housing InventoryCurrent

Inventory Under

Development

Individuals

Example Emergency Shelter 100 40Emergency Shelter 2,789 0

Beds Transitional Housing 3,608 281Permanent Supportive Housing 3,486 684Total 9,883 965

Persons in Families With ChildrenEmergency Shelter 846 0

Beds Transitional Housing 2,126 20Permanent Supportive Housing 1,474 363Total 4,446 383

Services InventoryCurrent

Inventory Under

Development

IndividualsOutreach 27 N/A

Services Supportive Services 30 N/ATotal 57 N/A

Persons in Families With ChildrenOutreach 7 N/A

Beds Supportive Services 12 N/APrevention 4 N/ATotal 23 N/A

LAHSA (2007)

Homeless Strategic Plan (91.215 (c))

1. Homelessness— Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for developing a system to address homelessness and the priority needs of homeless persons and families (including the subpopulations identified in the needs section). The jurisdiction's strategy must consider the housing and supportive services needed in each stage of the process which includes preventing homelessness, outreach/assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, and helping homeless persons (especially any persons that are chronically

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 132 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiahomeless) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. The jurisdiction must also describe its strategy for helping extremely low- and low-income individuals and families who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless.

2. Chronic homelessness—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy for eliminating chronic homelessness by 2013. This should include the strategy for helping homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. This strategy should, to the maximum extent feasible, be coordinated with the strategy presented Exhibit 1 of the Continuum of Care (CoC) application and any other strategy or plan to eliminate chronic homelessness. Also describe, in a narrative, relationships and efforts to coordinate the Consolidated Plan, CoC, and any other strategy or plan to address chronic homelessness.

3. Homelessness Prevention—Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy to help prevent homelessness for individuals and families with children who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless.

4. Institutional Structure— Briefly describe the institutional structure, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions, through which the jurisdiction will carry out its homelessness strategy.

5. Discharge Coordination Policy— Every jurisdiction receiving McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, or Section 8 SRO Program funds must develop and implement a Discharge Coordination Policy, to the maximum extent practicable. Such a policy should include “policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from publicly funded institutions or systems of care (such as health care facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for such persons.” The jurisdiction should describe its planned activities to implement a cohesive, community-wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how the community will move toward such a policy.

Homelessness and Chronic HomelessnessThe Los Angeles CoC has undertaken several strategies to address chronic homelessness as well as homelessness for individuals and families. The size and diversity of the Continuum has resulted in a strategy of developing regional implementation plans that are tailored to address specific community/regional issues and needs. LAHSA is currently working to document existing plans, and to engage areas still needing plans within next couple of months. The table below summarizes these strategies and provides local actions steps that will be taken to implement them.

CoC 10-Year Plan, Objectives, and Action Steps Chart

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 133 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Objectives to End Chronic

Homelessness and Move Families and

Individuals to Permanent Housing

2008 Local Action Steps Lead Person

Bas

elin

e (C

urre

nt

Leve

l)

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent i

n 12

m

onth

s

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 5

yea

rs

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 1

0 ye

ars

How are you going to do it? List action steps to be completed within the next 12 months.

List name and title or organization of one person responsible for accomplishing each action step.

1. Create new permanent housing beds for chronically homeless persons.

Facilitate use of HACLA Section 8 Homeless Assistance Vouchers and Project-Based Vouchers to create 15 new units of permanent housing for the chronically homeless in the next 12 months and 70 units thereafter in the following projects: Los Angeles County Dept. of

Mental Health (5 units) St. Jose Permanent Housing’s

Center (10 units) A Community of Friends Rayen

Apartments (6 units) Cobb and Abbey Hotels (64

units)

Rudolf Montiel,City of Los Angeles Housing Authority (HACLA)

911* 15Beds**

600Beds

1,500Beds

Obtain 2008 Shelter Plus Care funding to ensure completion of the following projects for chronically homeless people in 2008: Skid Row Housing Trust, 118

units City of Santa Monica, 13 units A Community of Friends, 15

units St. Joseph Permanent

Housing’s Center, 10 tenant-based units

Asian Pacific Counseling Center, 17 units

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director, Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA)

Secure funding through the Governor’s Chronic Homeless Initiative to facilitate the development of 41 units of housing at SRO Housing Corporation’s Panama Hotel.

Anita Nelson,Executive DirectorSRO Housing Corporation

* The baseline number of 911 was calculated by adding the Current Inventory listed in Chart I’s – CoC Housing Inventory Charts: Permanent Supportive Housing (683 units) to the number of Chronically Homeless Beds from the New Inventory In Place (228 units).

** Owing to the lengthy development cycle of supportive housing development, 15 new tenant-based Section 8 units targeting chronically homeless people will be added to the Continuum in this 12 month reporting period (February 1, 2007-January 31, 2008). However, 274 units are projected to open between February 1, 2008 through January 1, 2009, and another 100 are slated to open in the following year.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 134 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Objectives to End Chronic

Homelessness and Move Families and

Individuals to Permanent Housing

2008 Local Action Steps Lead Person

Bas

elin

e (C

urre

nt

Leve

l)

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 1

2 m

onth

s

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 5

yea

rs

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 1

0 ye

ars

2. Increase percentage of homeless persons staying in permanent housing over 6 months to at least 71%.

Continue to monitor the success of permanent housing projects in meeting this objective. Identify programs performing below the HUD standard (71%) and work with administering agencies to create strategy to improve performance.

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director, LAHSA

Rudolf Montiel,Executive Director HACLA

Carlos Jackson,Executive Director Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA)

Peter Mezza, AdministratorHousing Authority of the City of Santa Monica

Douglas Dunlap, City Manager for the City of Pomona

87% 87% 87% 87%

Use the State Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63) to fund housing specialist positions. These positions will provide follow-up once clients are placed and promote residential stability. Continue to provide training and support to these personnel, including access to integrated case management and financial assistance as needed to prevent loss of housing.

Dr. Marvin Southard,DirectorLos Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH)

Objectives to End Chronic

Homelessness and Move Families and

Individuals to Permanent Housing

2008 Local Action Steps Lead Person

Bas

elin

e (C

urre

nt

Leve

l)

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 1

2 m

onth

s

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 5

yea

rs

Num

eric

A

chie

vem

ent

in 1

0 ye

ars

Provide eviction prevention resources available to persons in permanent housing. Use the Los Angeles County Homeless Prevention Initiative as a means to provide emergency financial assistance to CalWORKs Non-Welfare-to-Work Homeless Families. Maintain eviction prevention efforts through local systems of care, including the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program.

Philip Browning,DirectorLos Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 135 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California3. Increase percentage of homeless persons moving from transitional housing (TH) to permanent housing to at least 61.5%.

Initiate a quarterly “Participant Destination” reporting requirement for all TH programs. Evaluate data and meet with both high and low performing agencies for the purpose of identifying causes for high and low placement into permanent housing.

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director, Los Angeles LAHSA

40% 50% 60% 65%

Expand the capacity of permanent housing available to homeless persons exiting transitional housing programs by securing FY 2007 Shelter Plus Care funding for 261 units.

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director LAHSA

Rudolf Montiel, Executive Director HACLA

Carlos Jackson, Executive Director Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA)

Peter Mezza, Housing Authority of the City of Santa Monica

Continue to use and expand the following capital financing and operating subsidy programs to increase the supply of permanent supportive housing throughout the Los Angeles Continuum of Care: State of California Proposition

1C funds The City of Los Angeles

Permanent Supportive Permanent Supportive Housing program;

City of Los Angeles Section 8 Homeless Program

Mercedes Marquez,General ManagerLos Angeles Housing Department (LAHD)

Implement new capital and operating funding programs through the following: Los Angeles County Homeless

and Housing Program Fund Los Angeles County Revolving

Loan Fund

Carlos Jackson, Executive DirectorL.A. County Community Development Commission (CDC)

Implement new capital and operating funding programs through the following: Mental Health Services Act

Statewide Housing Program Mental Health Services Act

Housing Trust Fund

Dr. Marvin Southard,DirectorLos Angeles County Department of Mental Health (DMH)

Expand housing placement services available to homeless persons through the following programs funded by the County of Los Angeles Homeless Prevention Initiative (HPI) and the County of Los Angeles Mental Health Department’s Community Services and Supports Plan: DPSS Housing Locators MHSA Housing Specialists

Philip Browning,DirectorDPSS

Dr. Marvin Southard,DirectorDMH

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 136 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaContinue to identify and address both systemic and client-specific barriers that negatively impact the transition from TH to permanent housing for participants

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director LAHSA

Objectives to End Chronic

Homelessness and Move Families and

Individuals to Permanent Housing

2008 Local Action Steps Lead Person

Bas

elin

e (C

urre

nt

Leve

l)

Num

eric

Ach

ieve

men

t in

12

mon

ths

Num

eric

Ach

ieve

men

tin

5 y

ears

Num

eric

Ach

ieve

men

tin

10

year

s

How are you going to do it? List action steps to be completed within the next 12 months.

List name and title or organization of one person responsible for accomplishing each action step.

4. Increase percentage of homeless persons employed at exit to at least 18%.

Monitor each funded program quarterly. Identify programs performing below the HUD standard (18%) and work with administering agencies to create strategy to improve performance.

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director, LAHSA

17% 18% 20% 25%

Continue to coordinate with all local WIA Boards within the Los Angeles Continuum of Care to ensure that homeless participants are able to access resources and be effectively served; where feasible, coordinate with WIA Boards to establish computer labs connected with their WorkSource Centers at local housing programs (e.g., emergency shelters, permanent housing sites)

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director, LAHSA

Implement the County-adopted ordinance that establishes a contracting preference of 5% for transitional employment and related supportive services for the homeless

William Fujioka, Chief Executive OfficerCounty of Los Angeles

5. Ensure that the CoC has a functional HMIS system.

Implement 55 non-participating programs into HMIS in the next 12 months.

Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director, LAHSA

81programs

1,375 beds

6.8 %Bed

Coverage

Add 55programs

2,000 beds

9.9 %Bed

Coverage

75%Bed

Coverage

90%Bed

Coverage

LAHSA (2007)

Institutional Structure

The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is an independent unit of local government (a Joint Powers Authority) created by the City and County of Los Angeles. LAHSA was created to provide leadership, advocacy, planning, and management of program funding within the Los Angeles Continuum of Care. LAHSA is governed by a ten-member Board of Commissioners, five of whom are appointed by the Mayor of Los Angeles and confirmed by the City Council, and one by each of the five County Supervisors.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 137 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

LAHSA plays a key role in coordinating homeless programs between the City and County. Coordination between the City and County of Los Angeles is critical because each controls crucial financial and program resources. LAHSA also integrates its planning efforts in eight Service Planning Areas with nonprofit service providers, community residents, the business community, schools, law enforcement, and other local governments, such as the 85 cities (excluding Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena) within the County. Funds for homeless programs from the Consolidated Plan will be used to support various components of the Continuum of Care operated by nonprofit housing and service providers.

Several city departments and entities such as the City of Los Angeles Housing Authority will participate in carrying out the strategies to end homelessness. However, as the lead entity of the CoC, LAHSA will maintain a pivotal role in the implementation of these strategies.

Discharge Planning

CoC Discharge Planning Policy Chart

Publicly Funded Institution(s) or

System(s) of Care in CoC

GeograPermanent Housing Area

None InitialDiscussion

Protocol inDevelopment

Formal Protocol Finalized

Formal Protocol Implemented

Foster CareHealth CareMental HealthCorrectionsIn 2005, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a policy of “zero tolerance” for discharging individuals from any County institution or facility or any County-sponsored program (where applicable) to homelessness. In 2006, the relevant County departments worked collectively to develop these policies. In some instances, such as foster care, additional standards apply from the State.

Foster Care:

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) protocol requires a Transitional Independent Living Plan for every youth age 14 and older in “out of home care” to ensure they are not discharged into homelessness. This protocol complies with California State Child Welfare regulations, which require completion of a Transitional Independent Living Plan (TILP) for youth between 15 ½ and 16 years who are in placement. The social worker is to ensure that the plan provides for “acquisition of safe and affordable housing, upon emancipation.” (California Department of Social Services Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 31-236 (i)(12).

These case planning procedures are supported by the provision of State-sponsored transitional housing placement programs (THPP), authorized under Section 11403 of the California Welfare and Institutions Codes. In addition, counties may also participate in the State’s license-exempt Transitional Housing Program – Plus (THP-plus), for emancipated foster youth, ages, 19-24 (Health and Safety Code, §1559.110 (e) and Welfare and Institutions Code, §11403.2).

Los Angeles County participates in both THPP and THP-Plus programs.

Proposition 1C, passed by California voters in November 2006, provides $50 million in funding for homeless emancipated foster youth.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 138 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Health Care:

Los Angeles County public health care inpatient facilities have implemented a policy requiring that all persons exiting health care facilities receive assistance finding appropriate housing opportunities and needed supportive services. This policy states that persons leaving these institutions shall not be released into homelessness and to only utilize HUD McKinney-Vento funded emergency shelters, transitional, or permanent housing units as a last resort. Discharges are facilitated by social workers who evaluate each patient that reports being homeless to determine if there are discharge arrangements that can be made with family, friends, or other support systems.

Additionally, the following activities further support these discharge planning efforts:

The CoC Hospital Discharge Planning Task Force, facilitated by the Hospital Association of Southern California, conducts regular meetings with hospital administrators to improve discharge planning activities and to increase the availability of needed resources. This Task Force is working with a collaborative of homeless providers in the Central City East section of Los Angeles.

Homeless Health Care Los Angeles conducts training for Kaiser Permanente discharge planning staff and LA County Hospital.

The County Department of Health Services, in partnership with local private hospitals in this CoC, have secured $1.2 million in County funding to increase the number of 24-hour recuperative care beds by 45 over the next year. This will program will provide medical oversight for homeless individuals being discharged from hospitals who no longer require acute care, but do require some medical/caregiver assistance. The project is expected to serve approximately 540 clients annually.

Access to Housing for Health, a project of the County Department of Health Services, has obtained a commitment of 100 Section 8 housing subsidies from the City and County Housing Authorities (HACLA and HACoLA) and is working with contracted housing locators to place homeless former patients in permanent housing with supportive services.

Mental Health:

In 2006 the Department of Mental Health (DMH) finalized and implemented discharge planning procedures for acute care hospitals, State mental hospitals and Institutions for Mental Disease (IMDs) that are designed to ensure that patients are not discharged to homelessness. Also in 2006, the DMH revised the Acute Psychiatric Inpatient contracts to include provisions for similar discharge planning. Additionally, the DMH monitors contracts to ensure compliance with State and Federal laws regarding discharge planning, ensuring compliance with required aftercare plans that are individualized, include family involvement when appropriate and Permanent Housing. Physical, financial, and housing needs and accessibility to community services and resources are addressed. DMH has also developed program guidelines for Outreach and Engagement for Clients in Institutions for those clients in Assertive Community Treatment, AB 2034 and Full Service Partnerships Programs. The guideline states “the agency staff must work cooperatively with the institution to coordinate discharge. The agency staff shall assist with locating residential placement/housing,. .” These policies are further supported by housing resources provided by the Mental Health Services Act.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 139 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Corrections: Protocols are in place for the entity responsible for the largest number of homeless discharges, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

County: The Los Angeles County Jail, operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, has both policy and an extensive service component in place to prevent inmates being released into homelessness. The Department estimates that approximately 20,000 homeless people pass through the Jail system each year. Inmates identified as homeless are tracked and referred to the Department’s Community Transition Unit (CTU). The CTU provides case managers, including staff at night 6 days a week, to help assist homeless people prior to and during the release process.

Those who are referred to the CTU are linked to services while serving their time, including General Relief through the Department of Social Services and various housing, drug rehabilitation and employment services. The CTU provides referrals to work source centers; a number of non-McKinney-funded housing and case management services (for example, Volunteers of America (VOA), the Weingart Center, Amity Foundation, Union Rescue Mission, Tarzana Treatment Center), sober living facilities and more. Bus tokens and taxi vouchers are also provided to ensure former inmates have transportation to their post-incarceration housing. Service providers also provide transportation for released inmates to a drop-in center and other nearby housing locations. The CTU also heads a Countywide re-entry board to collaborate and build new relationships with organizations throughout Los Angeles County to enable former inmates to return to their pre-incarceration communities while receiving supportive and housing assistance. The CTU is assisted by the Department of Mental Health who provides staff to jails assigned to assist transitioning homeless inmates into housing. This includes a discharge planning group of 6 caseworkers serving the severely mentally ill and 5 case mangers and employment specialists serving the severely mentally ill under the State’s Mental Health Services Act.

Cities: A survey of police departments with jails in the CoC revealed that most have informal policies designed to ensure that former inmates are not discharged to the streets, including taking homeless inmates to the local “church shelter”, cold weather shelter, or calling 2-1-1 (the County services and referral information hotline).

State: The California State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has discharge policies to prevent recidivism, including ensuring adequate housing arrangements exist post-release. They additionally provide website listings for halfway housing as a housing resource. In April 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a prison reform agreement that included creation of community-based re-entry programs to reduce recidivism that recognizes the importance of housing as a key element to prevention. This initiative encompasses a range of service interventions, which ultimately require stable housing for success. In the LA CoC, the State-funded Going Home Los Angeles will have housing resources available to program participants.

LAHSA (2007) * Please note that “corrections” category refers to local jails and state or federal prisons.

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles – Additional Programs Operated Addressing the Needs of the Homeless

Under the SRO Moderate Rehabilitation and Shelter + Care programs, HACLA has provided over $142 million in housing assistance to date. Currently over 2600 households are being assisted. While not part of the city’s Consolidated Plan, these programs are important components of HACLA’s overall strategy to address the needs the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless, and complement and strengthen LAHSA’s efforts to address the housing and supportive needs of the homeless. HACLA has administered the programs for several years, and HUD has asked that the city report on progress in both the annual Action Plans and CAPER document.

Moderate Rehab for Single Room OccupancyThe SRO Moderate Rehabilitation Program was created under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. The Section 8 rental assistance provided under this program brings more SRO units into the local housing supply to assist homeless persons into permanent housing. Much like the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, HUD's strategy

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 140 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiais to convert existing housing, a rundown hotel, or even an abandoned building into safe and decent housing. Again, like the Moderate Rehab Program, the SRO Section 8 subsidy does not provide financing for rehabilitation costs.

HUD selects applicants for SRO Moderate Rehabilitation funding in a national competition based on regional and national homeless assistance goals. Selected SRO projects (owners) receive rental assistance on behalf of a homeless tenant for ten years. To be eligible for assistance, an SRO unit must receive a minimum of $3,000 of rehabilitation work to meet HUD's Housing Quality Standards (HQS). The target population for SRO Moderate Rehab funding is homeless individuals coming directly from the street, or from emergency and transitional shelters. While access to supportive services for SRO Moderate Rehab funding is not a requirement, applicants who design service coordination in their project plans receive leveraging points from HUD as part of project evaluation.

The rental subsidy in the SRO Moderate Rehabilitation Program is attached to the building or unit as Project-Based Rental Assistance. As long as a tenant remains in that building or unit during the term of the contract, he/she receives the rental subsidy.

The Shelter Plus Care Program was created under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.  Shelter Plus Care promotes permanent housing to homeless persons with disabilities.  Shelter Plus Care grants require a supportive services match equal to, or greater than, the Section 8 rental assistance award. HUD selects projects for Shelter Plus Care funding in a national competition based on regional and national homeless assistance goals.  Selected applicants receive rental assistance on behalf of a homeless tenant for five years.  The grants provide for a variety of housing rental situations, Tenant-Based (TRA), Sponsor-Based (SRA), Project-Based (PBA), and an SRO MRP Based Rental Assistance component.  If a Shelter Plus Care applicant proposes to fund rehabilitation efforts for project-based units, the Section 8 rental assistance award is for ten years.

To be eligible for the program a person must:

Be Homeless* Have a mental illness Abuse drug/alcohol Suffer from HIV/AIDS or a dual diagnosis Be referred by a CBO under contract with HACLA’s Shelter + Care program

Applications received from these agencies are reviewed for Shelter Plus Care eligibility.  They are not placed on the Section 8 waiting list.  If the applicant qualifies, he/she will receive a certificate.

*(The term “homeless” or “homeless individual” does not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained under an Act of Congress or a State law.  A participant or family head of household counts as homeless, if they came from a psychiatric facility, substance abuse treatment facility, hospital, jail or prison, were there less than 30 days, living on the street, or in an emergency shelter, before entering the treatment facility.   A Homeless person does include persons who are alternating staying with different relatives or friends for a short period. But if they make a contribution to the rent, they are not considered homeless.)

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 141 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Section 8 Collaboratives – Demonstration Grant Projects

LA HOPE CollaborativeThis demonstration grant targets the chronically homeless population who wish to work. Individuals receive initial support through the AB2034 Program.

Skid Row Collaborative This demonstration grant targets the chronically homeless population with chronic substance abuse issues. Individuals are housed through the Shelter Plus Care Program.

Connections Collaborative (HUD CDC Housing and Health Study Connections)This demonstration grant targets the homeless, or those at imminent risk of being homeless, who have AIDS/HIV.

Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)

(States only) Describe the process for awarding grants to State recipients, and a description of how the allocation will be made available to units of local government.

NOT APPLICABLE TO CITY OF LOS ANGELES

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 142 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

*Please also refer to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook

1. Identify the jurisdiction's priority non-housing community development needs eligible for assistance by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community Development Needs Table (formerly Table 2B), i.e., public facilities, public improvements, public services and economic development.

Central to the Five-Year Consolidated Plan strategy is a description of the City’s non-housing community development needs, with accompanying tables and supporting documentation. This section is intended to provide the basis for understanding the City’s allocation of CDBG resources for activities other than housing, and provide evidence of adherence to HUD’s requirement that the City provide both its short-term and long-term non-housing community development objectives.

The City’s data is designed to reflect the needs of families for each type of activity in terms of dollar amounts estimated to meet the priority need for each type of activity. For the 2008-2013 Plan, the City is submitting the priority needs table provided through the CPMP (Consolidated Plan Management Process) structure. All of the City’s references to public services, infrastructure improvements, community and economic development, and neighborhood revitalization shall indicate how its strategies will address the need of low- and moderate-income persons, and an estimate of the number of persons expected to benefit.

Public ServicesOne of the two most visible component of the City’s Non-Housing Community Development strategy is provision of Public Services, funded primarily through CDBG, but also from ESGP and HOPWA funds. The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program provides approximately $5 million annually to supplement Consolidated Plan funding. The City’s submitted Priority Needs Table reveals that Public Service programs are a high priority annually for funding as demand for services continues as high and sustained. Many Public Service programs operated by the City exceed annual goals and more often than not exceed them. Homeless programs are highly oversubscribed; one of the primary obstacles is the changing nature of homelessness and the inability to predict with any accuracy service demands from year to year.

The City will continue to provide a comprehensive “safety net” of supportive services for low- and moderate-income persons and those with special needs, such as abused spouses and children, the physically and developmentally disabled, seniors and the frail elderly, and the homeless. CDBG, CRA and ESG funds together provided $12,893,713 in federal resources for homeless shelter and services (and for administration of programs) for the 2007-2008 program year. CSBG funds are blended with CDBG funds to further leverage the extent and impact of federal funds allocated for Public Service activities.

The key components of the City’s Public Services program include the: Aging Services Delivery System; AIDS Prevention; Day Laborer; Domestic Violence Shelter Operations;

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 143 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California Homeless Housing and Supportive Services (jointly with LAHD); Human Services Delivery System; LA Bridges Gang Prevention Program; Youth and Family Centers; and the Youth Opportunities Movement (YO)

Several of these programs are described in the section of this report pertaining to the City’s anti-poverty strategy that follows. Homeless Housing and Supportive Services, the Aging Services Delivery System, Domestic Violence Shelter Operations, and AIDS Prevention programs are described in the section pertaining to Special Needs, as are programs for the physically and developmentally disabled; the LA Bridges Program is featured here.

L.A. Bridges Gang Prevention and Intervention ProgramL.A. Bridges (LAB) is a two-pronged approach to combat gang activity in the City of Los Angeles. LAB uses a Prevention component to offer youth between the ages of 10 and 14 an alternative to joining gangs while the Intervention component assists youth in gangs between the ages of 14 and 25 to choose a different path other than gang involvement by connecting them with jobs, education, training and other resources.

The Prevention component operates in twenty-seven (27) middle schools, located in areas with heavy gang activity. This program provides youth identified by the school or law enforcement as being “at risk for joining gangs” with services such as tutoring, counseling and recreational activities all under an extensive case managed approach. These services are designed to direct these youth away from the lure of gang activity and guide them toward productive and safe alternatives. These services are available to youth 10 – 14 years of age attending a participating middle school or who live within a two mile radius of a participating school. Upon completion of the program, youth participate in a culmination ceremony that includes recognition by the Los Angeles City Council.

The Intervention component targets gang members from 14 to 25 years of age. This multi-faceted program includes a service wherein Intervention workers employed by non-profit organizations funded by the City of Los Angeles are dispatched to “gang hot spots” to diffuse potentially violent actions between gangs, perform mediation and encourage resolution to issues through the negotiation of peace treaties. Additionally, these youth are provided with services to help finish their education, get needed training, housing, tattoo removal, etc. Gang intervention services may be accessed City Wide.

The City will receive $1,955,200 in CLEAR (Community Law Enforcement and Recovery Program) and GRP (Gang Reduction Programs) in the form of Congressional earmarks passed by the 110th Congress to be administered by the Department of Justice (Mayoral Earmarks), and $446,500 in General Earmarks for youth gang prevention (also through the Department of Justice). These will prove to be an extremely effective leveraging tool for gang prevention activities through the LA Bridges program recommended for CDBG funding in the 34th year.

Neighborhood Improvements

The second component of the City’s Non-Housing Community Development program is Neighborhood Improvements. This category includes project activities pertaining to public infrastructure and for community facilities as well as parks, street lighting, and other community projects.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 144 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

The City’s Bureau of Engineering is the lead agency in maintaining and updating a city- wide data base of priority infrastructure and community facilities needs; the Department of General Services maintains a “Building Book” of City owned- and leased-facilities that provides valuable insight into their condition. The Department of Recreation and Parks also manages a data base of priority projects.

In 2003, the Bureau released the Infrastructure Report Card for the city of Los Angeles, which assesses the condition of the City’s infrastructure, identifies the level at which it should be maintained, determination of funding shortfalls, identification of how to pay for maintenance (prohibited under CDBG regulations) and prepare an infrastructure investment plan that addresses needs. The overall estimated investment need for the City’s infrastructure for the period 2003 – 2013 is approximately $9.5 billion.

The lowest scoring areas were in the areas of street lighting, water systems, parks, and streets and highways (an assigned grade of ‘C’, ‘C’, ‘C’, and ‘D+’, respectively). No grade has yet been given to the 842 public buildings jointly identified by the Bureau of Engineering and Department of General Services, which are defined as gathering places for the general public and work spaces of public employees and representatives. Public buildings include police and fire stations, libraries and mini-city halls.

Parks and Recreational FacilitiesParks are a vital part of healthy, livable communities. Parks and playgrounds are essential to physical and emotional health, and can transform neighborhoods and provide a focus of economic stability and community development. As an important player in the Consolidated Planning process, the City Department of Recreation and Parks (DRP) will continue to commit itself to effective stewardship of its resources and to creative planning and use of a variety of fund sources, including CDBG, to keep important programs operating – and in particular, those in low- to moderate-income areas of the City.

Los Angeles residents have a wide range of recreational activities available to them. The DRP offers access to parks, beaches, mountain trails, campgrounds and historical sites. The Department of Recreation and Parks maintains over 15,710 acres of parkland with 390 neighborhood and regional parks, 9 lakes, 176 recreation centers and 372 children's play areas, 13 golf courses, 287 tennis courts, 9 dog parks, 59 swimming pools, 7 skate parks, 7 museums, 24 child care facilities, 30 senior centers, 2 beaches and an urban forest of one million trees. CDBG, in combination with City Proposition K (LA for Kids), California State Roberti/Z’berg, Proposition 12, and Per Capita Open Space funding have proven to be important resources for preservation, development, and expansion of City recreation and parks facilities in low-income areas of the City where recreational needs are greatest and which are often park poor.

DRP also provides after school and day care for children, teen clubs, basketball, volleyball, softball and flag football games and leagues. Kid’s classes range from homework help to dance classes to field trips; Departmental programs also include activities for seniors including field trips and classes as well as a lunch program with an average of 3,000 meals served each week.

DRP, in fact the whole City, faces substantial economic challenges in the coming year, but the Department’s goal remains to safeguard City recreational resources, and to reach out to the community to help keep the parks green, programs and activities available, and facilities safe. Over 11,000 volunteers contribute their time to keeping DRP functional.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 145 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

In November 2007, the DRP initiated a City Wide Community Needs Assessment to obtain public input for use in planning future recreational needs; and to obtain information and suggestions that will contribute to the protection and expansion of Los Angeles’s 15,000 acres of existing parkland. Community workshops were held in each of the 15 City Council Districts during the months of December 2007 and January 2008.

Sidewalk Construction and Tree Planting ProgramCDBG funds have been used for funding reconstruction of City sidewalks and for root pruning since 2001.

This citywide program provides for reconstruction of sidewalks, removal and replanting of trees, and provision of root pruning as necessary in low-to-moderate income residential neighborhoods of the City. Work is limited to eligible block groups within the City's low-to-moderate income census tracts, as identified through the U.S. Census Bureau's census tract and block group maps. 

The Mayor of Los Angeles has identified public safety as a priority for use of CDBG funds, a goal shared by the Bureau of Street Services. The Bureau works towards this goal by providing sidewalk reconstruction for the residents of qualifying low-to-moderate income census tracts in the City lacking in adequate and safe pedestrian access. Through the Sidewalk Reconstruction Program, the Bureau reduces the number of trip and fall accidents and resulting litigation against the City.

This program enhances public safety through safer pedestrian access, and creates a more aesthetically pleasing environment for each community. The planting of trees is a source of community pride, and greatly improves the aesthetics of the neighborhood. In addition, an urban forest reduces noise levels, improves air quality by absorbing smog and producing oxygen, provides habitats for wildlife, reduces stress and increases property values. A tree's shade can reduce heat in a home by as much as 30% in the summer; and properly placed trees can shield home from harsh winds and storms in the winter, reducing the need for energy usage. The Bureau's long-term goal for this program is to continue reconstructing sidewalks in low- to moderate-income census tracts of the City for as long as funding is available.

The Bureau uses Special Projects Division sidewalk construction crews to perform the sidewalk reconstruction work for this program, and Urban Forestry Division tree planting crews to replant trees and deep root prune as necessary. The Urban Forestry Division may perform some additional tree trimming if heavy root pruning is required for safety reasons.

The Bureau's Sidewalk and Tree Planting Program CDBG National Objective is Low/Mod Area (LMA) Benefit. Street Services meets this objective by only working in qualifying low-to-moderate income census tracts. The Bureau, in order to meet HUD rules and regulations, breaks it down even further to qualifying block group levels. In order to ensure that each construction site in the program qualifies for low/mod area benefit and meets all HUD regulations, qualified Bureau personnel run and print Thomas Bros. area maps for each construction site with 2000 census tract overlays. The census tract numbers obtained from these maps are then compared to HUD 2000 low-to-moderate-income census data to determine if they qualify for CDBG benefits and meet the program's CDBG National Objective. In addition, HUD census tract and block group maps are run and

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 146 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaprinted. These maps are also compared to HUD 2000 low-to-mod census data to ensure that they qualify.

After it is determined that a site qualifies for CDBG assistance, qualified Bureau personnel perform on site inspections and document through photographs. Also, Bureau construction personnel do on-site surveys to determine the scope of work and square footage. All this is done before any reconstruction work can begin. All eligible program service area maps, census tract maps and block group maps along with eligible census data including percentages of low-to-moderate income persons are provided with the PEP submitted to CDD.

The City has consistently allocated CDBG funding for public facilities and improvements through previous citywide CDBG reprogramming cycles. For example, on October 1, 2007, the Community Development Block Grant Task Force issued its second report back to the Mayor and City council which included a timeliness expenditure status and funding reprogramming recommendations. A portion of the CDBG funds identified for reprogramming in the 33rd Year (2007):

$400,000 was identified for an emergency family shelter; $1,000,000 was identified for a public health services facility; $675,000 was identified for expansion of parking at a mixed-use development

project; and $2 million was identified for preservation of historically significant structures

The Mayor and Council also approved a variety of neighborhood improvements in the 32nd

Year (2006) mid-year reprogramming, including:

Site work and landscaping, $500,000; Child care and youth center facility renovation, $710,000; Acquisition of land for parks and park development, $410,200; Cultural facilities, $117,000; The 33rd Year (2007-2008) Action Plan resulted in approval of: $500,000 in CDBG for acquisition of lots to expand parking at a City Youth and

Family Center; $1.5 million for historic restoration of two structures for future use as public service

facilities; $1.5 million to acquire a structure to permit expansion of a public health clinic in a

predominantly low-income area; and $1 million for construction of a community center for low-income families, at-risk

children and youth ages 6 to 17

The Mayor and City Council has identified several new neighborhood improvements in his recommendations for 34th year CDBG funding, including the Broadway Streetscape project, Cypress Park Youth and Family Center renovation, Daniel Fields Skate Park, LAUSD, Belmont High Field, the Job Training and Opportunity Center, the Manchester Jr. Arts Center/Vision Theater among several other neighborhood and community facility improvements.

The conclusion that may be drawn is that both the Mayor and Council have demonstrated a commitment to use of CDBG funds to meet a variety of infrastructure and public facility needs; further analysis of the types of projects proposed and approved for CDBG funding demonstrates a strong commitment to establishment, expansion and renovation of

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 147 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiafacilities serving families and youth.

Other Neighborhood Improvement Project Activities

Street LightingThroughout the 34 years of CDBG funding, street lighting projects have been funded through CDBG in areas of the City deficient in lumens, or where there is no street lighting at all. While CDBG funds cannot be used for maintenance of street lights (such as change out of bulbs), there are a surprising number of City areas where lighting has never been provided, primarily because Los Angeles is the only large city in the United States for which the construction and extension of street lighting is dependent on self-imposed assessments through the vote of the individual communities. Inadequate or non-existent street lighting encourages crime, discourages business investment, and contributes to both residential and commercial blight.

For Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the Bureau of Street Lighting (BSL) identified the need for 430 units of new lighting in low- to moderate-income areas of the City, specifically 185 units of replacement lighting in the mid-Cities and South Los Angeles areas of the City; and has submitted several street lighting projects for CDBG funding through the 34th Year (2008-2009) Action Plan process. In the 33rd program year, the Mayor and City Council recommended funding for Sun Valley Street Lighting Improvements in the San Fernando Valley.

FALCON (Focused Attack Linking Communities, Organizations, and Neighborhoods) The FALCON program, a collaborative City Wide program funded through CDBG, is an important tool in addressing neighborhood and community blight, crime and disinvestment. Vacant buildings are referred to FALCON (Abandoned Building Task Force – ABTF) via two avenues. The Contract Nuisance Abatement Section of the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) refers vacant nuisance properties when it is unable to attain voluntary compliance through its administrative procedures.

Vacant nuisance properties are referred from other external sources, including: Neighborhood Prosecutors, the Los Angeles Police Department, City Council Offices, Neighborhood Councils, and other community members and stakeholders.

Upon initial referral, the City Attorney’s Office and LADBS conduct a preliminary evaluation of each subject property. This process includes conducting a site check of the property, evaluating code enforcement history, criminal activity history, assessment in terms of sensitive sites (including schools and parks); compilation of owner profiles (other properties in the City), and other relevant information. When there is a complaint of criminal activity at a property, LADBS seeks the assistance of LAPD in conducting any site visit.

Typically, LADBS will issue an Abate Order requiring a property owner to clean, fence and barricade as required by the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The LAMC’s Vacant Building Ordinance also requires that an owner of a vacant property prepare and submit a “Statement of Intent” to LADBS indicating the owner’s plans for the property. Options include: rehabilitation of the property, sale, and demolition. In most instances, the owner of a vacant nuisance property is requested to attend a City Attorney office hearing attended by a LADBS inspector, and conducted by a City Attorney hearing officer. Owners are advised of their responsibility with regard to the maintenance of the property,

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 148 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaand of their obligation to return the property to productive use. Owners are also advised that failure to comply with the Abate Order and requirements of the LAMC can result in criminal prosecution.

Since the properties referred to FALCON/ABTF are vacant, they fall solely within the jurisdiction of LADBS and not LAHD. The City Attorney’s office and LADBS identify those properties which may be suitable for the City Attorney’s American Dream Project, which works with developers to acquire and rehabilitate these problem properties. All vacant properties which are the subject of Abate Orders are listed on LADBS’s Web Page.

Economic Development

Over the last twelve years of Consolidated Planning, the City has funded a wide variety of programs and project activities that promote economic development, business investment, physical improvements to commercial business districts, clean-up of contaminated sites with potential for development (Brownfields), planning of business improvement districts (BID, small business and micro-enterprise training through the Los Angeles Business Assistance Program (LABAP) administered by CDD’s Economic Development Division; and job creation and retention projects through use of CDBG and Section 108 Loan Guarantee proceeds.

CDD has formed a strong partnership with the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development, the Community Redevelopment Agency, private developers, local banks and investment firms, federal agencies, and local economic development corporations (EDCs) in the undertaking of economic development activities.

Other sources for funding of economic development projects include use of Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) tax increment funds derived from increases in property values, UDAG program income, EDA funds and developer funds. Recently, the National New Markets Tax Credit Fund, an arm of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund of the U.S. Treasury awarded tax credits equivalent to $75 million to the Los Angeles Development Fund; CDD and the CRA jointly developed and submitted the application on behalf of this Community Development Entity, or CDE.

Economic Development Projects

Over the last several years, the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Community Development Department have successfully partnered in use of CDBG and Section 108 Loan Guarantee funds as a catalyst for several critical economic development projects. All commercial activities are subject to the Public Benefit requirements imposed by the CDBG regulations for Special Economic Development Activities. The most recent projects, funded through reprogramming of CDBG funds and/or through the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, include:

The Adams/La Brea Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development located on the north and south side of Adams Boulevard, between La Brea Avenue and Redondo Boulevard. This project will eliminate blight and provide needed jobs, retail, and housing for a community that has long been characterized by high unemployment and business disinvestment. At least 250 living wage jobs and new taxable sales of $150 million are estimated to be generated as a result of this project.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 149 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

The Grant AME/Imani Fe Mixed-Use Project, which will provide new affordable housing and amenities for very low- and low-income individuals and families. The project will result in development of 92 units of affordable multi-family housing on Central Avenue between 103rd Street and 105th Street in South Los Angeles. 1,200 square feet of space has been set aside for limited retail to induce additional retail development along Central Avenue. This project is in partnership with the Grant AME Housing and Economic Development Corporation. $2.8 million in CDBG funds were allocated for construction of a mixed-use development. It is projected that 150 construction-related jobs and 10 permanent jobs will be created through this project as well as 92 units of affordable housing units for low/moderate income residents.

The Broadway Manchester Mixed Use Development Project, which was awarded $1,030,000 in CDBG reprogramming funds for the development of a 300,000 square foot retail shopping center on the wet side of Broadway from Manchester to 88th Street and a mixed-use development on the east side of Broadway. CDBG funds are used to acquire six surplus Department of Transportation parking lots.

The 54 th and Crenshaw Mixed-Use Project is a mixed-use commercial and residential development located on the southeast corner of 54th Street and Crenshaw Boulevard. This project was designed to eliminate blighting conditions and provide needed housing, retail and jobs for a disadvantaged community. The project was awarded $3.2 million in CDBG funding reprogrammed from the 32nd

Program Year, to be used for property acquisition by voluntary sale.

The Goodyear Tract Development Project constitutes a 208-acre industrial area located in South Los Angeles near the Alameda Corridor. $2 million in reprogrammed CDBG funds are used to acquire and option up to two sites in the tract, with the goal of improving existing properties through capital investment in the existing buildings and infrastructure to better enable the area compete with surrounding modern industrial tracts. Over 60 new jobs are estimated to be brought to South Los Angeles as a result of the project.

The Centre Street Lofts Mixed Use Development was completed in late 2006 and provides 116 live work, for-sale market rate units, ground floor retail, and public parking. The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) provides for an affordable housing component whereby the CRA offers soft second mortgage financing averaging $100,000 per unit to 23 low-and moderate-income families.

The Wilmington Industrial Project is a 232-acre site strategically located in Wilmington that can now be described as an old, largely obsolete, mixed industrial area dominated by small uses with virtually no residential use and minimal support commercial use.  Over 40% of the project area is underutilized and an environmental nightmare, replete with auto and boat dismantlers, live animal stockyards, truck parking, open storage areas and dated oil production usage.

Brownfields Economic Development Initiative – Spotlight on City TeamworkThe Community Development Department was recently allowed a second opportunity to be awarded a $1.26 million BEDI grant from HUD.  The grant and a $9.4 million Section 108 Loan will help acquire 9.74 acres of land to support an existing business expansion and to complete a new industrial park in the Wilmington Industrial Park of the City of Los Angeles.   HUD required CDD to submit a new BEDI and Section 108 loan application by a November 2, 2007 deadline.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 150 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Both applications required an extensive data collection effort by CDD and the CRA, including census, financial, historical facts, etc., none of which is completely located in any one division.   As such, completing and submitting the applications in a timely manner demanded cross-divisional coordination between key individuals from five CDD Divisions. 

Other economic development tools used by the City include:

State Enterprise ZonesThe City of Los Angeles has three State Enterprise Zones as well as a Federal Empowerment Zone and a Renewal Community designation. Within these areas, businesses can take advantage of State and/or Federal tax credits and deductions not available to businesses elsewhere. The goal of the incentives is to stimulate business attraction, growth, and increased employment opportunities within economically challenged areas of the City.

Enterprise Zones assist businesses located in the zones to lower their operating costs by providing them with tax credits and deductions. The state of California offers incentives such as: hiring credits, sales & use tax credits, expense and interest deductions. The City of Los Angeles offers local incentives such as, DWP rate discount, site fee waivers, sewer facility hookup payment plans, Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and reduced parking rates.

The Los Angeles Enterprise Zone was conditionally designated by the State on October 15, 2006. When the designation becomes permanent, it will be valid for 15 years. In addition, the Eastside State Enterprise Zone designation is valid through January 10, 2008, and the Harbor Zone through March 3, 2009.

Los Angeles Business Assistance Program (LABAP)The concentration of people living in poverty in the City is approximately 19%. About 41% of individuals 25 years or older living in poverty did continue their education beyond high school. Owning a business does not require a college education, only the proper skills and knowledge to operate and grow it. EDD’s business assistance program has been developed to provide the classroom training that will allow any individual with the aptitude for being an entrepreneur to learn the right skills and acquire the knowledge that will lead to starting up their business and become successful entrepreneurs.

CDBG Float Loan PolicyCDBG float financing can be an important and useful option to fund a variety of economic development, housing, and infrastructure projects. Nevertheless, float funding must meet all CDBG-related HUD regulations, including an appropriate National Objective and Public Benefit, and the underlying project must meet all City and or Federal underwriting standards. Care must be taken to utilize this funding tool in a careful, deliberative manner in order to safeguard the Community Development Block Grant allocation that underlies all float loans. The CDD will be responsible for advising the Mayor and Council concerning the feasibility, appropriateness, and risks associated with each proposed float loan.

In order to diminish risks to the City’s CDBG entitlement, the City has adopted the following policy guidelines:

Float loans should be made to City departments or the CRA, and not made directly to developers or other private parties;

The requirement for repayment of the Float Loan commences at the time of the execution of the loan agreement and may not exceed 2 ½ years (30 months);

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 151 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California The requesting department shall identify in its request verifiable repayment sources

to be generated within the required 2.5 years, including but not limited to: a commercial bank firm takeout commitment letter; formal pledge of tax increment funds; bonds; an irrevocable commercial bank letter of credit; or other similar source of collateral;

The borrowing City Entity or CRA will provide a written analysis of the need for a float loan explaining why traditional commercial bank financing and or Section 108 or a standard CDBG loan is not obtainable via the Consolidated Plan process;

Float loans must meet all requirements for National Objective, eligibility, and if appropriate, public benefit in accordance with 24 CFR 570.301. Project eligibility will be determined solely by CDD;

In the aggregate, all outstanding Float Loans should not exceed 20 percent of the total CDBG Line of Credit available at the end of the prior program year;

Income derived from repayment of a Float Loan, including interest, if any, is to be treated as program income and will be returned to the CDBG Line of Credit;

Imposition of interest to be charged on a Float Loan will be evaluated and recommended by CDD on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as the nature of the project, for-profit versus non-profit developers, or the financial resources of the developer, will be considered in such analysis; and

A Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan shall be processed by the CDD and submitted to the Citizens Unit for Participation (CUP) for review for each Float Loan proposal, in accordance with HUD regulations. The amendment shall include one of the following four options in the event that the loan is not repaid within the required 30-month period: obtain an irrevocable and unconditional line of commercial credit for the full amount of the loan; obtain written approval from HUD for a method of repayment, such as a pledge of tax increment; amend or delete activities in the Consolidated Plan in an amount equal to the loan amount; or transfer City General Fund revenue to the CDBG Line of Credit.

A form of collateral shall secure the Float Loan approved by the CDD. Such collateral may be property based, such as a deed of trust, but may also include a pledge of Area-Wide Tax Increment, bonds or other forms allowed within federal regulations.

2. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs. Please see the Priority Needs Table included with this document. The Executive Summary in the first part of this document contains a summary of the Mayor’s priorities for use of Consolidated Plan funding. In addition, project activities designated as “high priority” are those that will be funded in the upcoming year and are fully consistent with the Mayor’s priorities; those designated as “medium priority” are project activities that are consistent with Mayoral and City Council priorities, but will not be funded in the upcoming year, due to funding constraints, alternative sources of funding, or other, more immediate priorities; and those that are designated as “low priority” are those that are inconsistent with the Mayor’s priorities and will probably not be funded through the Consolidated Plan because of funding constraints, or other sources of funding have been identified.

2. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.

Please also see the section on “Gaps and Strengths” in the City’s Consolidated Plan delivery system, and “Obstacles”, both set forth in the first part of this document.

Sustained Demand for Public Services

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 152 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaA major obstacle to meeting underserved needs in the City is the high and sustained demand for public services, which is outstripping the City’s ability to provide funding because of the statutory public service limitation, or cap, of 15% of the CDBG grant plus the previous year’s program income.

As a result, the City will continue to advocate a change in the statutory CDBG Public Service cap, or limitation, of 15% of CDBG dollars to 25% or more for such activities; however, at this writing, it is uncertain that the City will be successful in this endeavor during the duration of the upcoming five-year Consolidated Planning period.

As cited in the Executive Summary, the City is at its limit in terms of additional programming for public service activities; economies and efficiencies must be found within available funding and within the City’s available organizational structure in order to maintain a level of support for the City’s Human Service Delivery System and related safety net programs.

This constraint will have a negative effect on the City’s ability to meet growing service needs, particularly as the rate of in-migration continues, the City’s population grows older, the challenge of providing suitable housing and supportive services continues, and overall, individuals and families require an increasingly higher level of specialized services. Less than one in five Los Angeles residents have health insurance, which will ensure increasing demands not only on local hospitals and clinics but in demands for public agencies to provide such services, or to provide referrals to care providers.

Lack of Awareness of Existing Social Service ProgramsMany individuals and families within both the city and county of Los Angeles are often unaware of the scope of social services available to them. The City, in partnership with Los Angeles County launched ACCESS, a public information marketing and training campaign to increase awareness and accessibility of existing programs and subsidies that will lead low-income households to self-sufficiency. ACCESS Health focuses on educating the public on available health programs such as Medi-Cal, Food Stamps, Healthy Families, and Healthy Kids. Through these programs the percentage of youth in Los Angeles County has increased substantially, from 88% in 2001 to 94% in 2005 (United Way 2007 State of the County Report).

Lack of Developable Sites for Economic DevelopmentParticularly for economic development, developable land within the City’s boundaries is scarce and expensive and continues to be a significant obstacle to inception of critically needed projects. Many thoughtful and productive economic development proposals, with substantial potential for economic revitalization and public benefit to residents in an area are hindered by the high cost and unavailability of buildable sites. The unparalleled explosion in commercial and retail uses in downtown Los Angeles and an extensive pipeline of condominium and loft housing construction projects has resulted in skyrocketing prices for parcels, and consequently a far higher degree of public subsidy is required – this at a time when federal assistance for economic and community development project activities is stagnant or declining.

The sheer extent of public infrastructure needs and ever-escalating construction and materials costs requires that hard decisions by the Mayor and Council must be made in allocating increasingly scarce CDBG funds and Section 108 Loan Guarantee proceeds.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 153 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California4. Identify specific long-term and short-term community development objectives (including economic development activities that create jobs), developed in accordance with the statutory goals described in section 24 CFR 91.1 and the primary objective of the CDBG program to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.

As explained in the Executive Summary, the Mayor of Los Angeles has identified three critical long-term and short-term priorities for programming and expenditure of Consolidated Plan funds; youth development and education, development of affordable and workforce housing; and job creation and securing our economic future.

Over the next five years of the Consolidated Plan, it is anticipated that the City will have also finalized a citywide economic development strategy. At present, the City’s economic development strategy provided priority to 1) projects that are strategic, catalytic and cost effective; and 2) that result in the creation and retention of jobs that pay a living wage. As covered previously, the City has within its resources a diverse and useful set of tools for economic development.

For example, the Economic Development Division of CDD includes in its annual goals the underwriting/inducement of $150 million of lending activities, which includes $100 million in bonds; creation of at least 400 living wage jobs through lending activities; assisting one to 500 small businesses to grow and mature; development of 100 entrepreneurs; and, creation of at least 180 jobs for low to moderate persons through the Business Assistance Program.

Antipoverty Strategy (91.215 (h))

1. Describe the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number of poverty level families (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually). In consultation with other appropriate public and private agencies, (i.e. TANF agency) state how the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for producing and preserving affordable housing set forth in the housing component of the consolidated plan will be coordinated with other programs and services for which the jurisdiction is responsible.

2. Identify the extent to which this strategy will reduce (or assist in reducing) the number of poverty level families, taking into consideration factors over which the jurisdiction has control.

The City of Los Angeles’ anti-poverty strategy includes both policy initiatives that address structural causes of poverty, and the funding of economic and social programs that enable low-income clients to move towards self-sufficiency and end the cycle of poverty. This is enabled through funding and management of the Human Services Delivery System (HSDS) and related programs, which will be explained in the Non-Housing Community Development section of this document. In 1999 the City adopted the HSDS model to reflect its commitment to family self-sufficiency as a guiding principle, constituting a holistic approach to identifying and solving the root causes of poverty at the familial level.

The City has adopted the “family self-sufficiency” approach in carrying out public service programs locally. The term “self-sufficiency” connotes independence from reliance on social welfare programs. Fulfillment is evidenced when an individual or family has enough

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 154 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaincome, as well as knowledge, personal skills, and support systems necessary to secure safe and affordable housing; obtain quality child care; fulfill education and employment goals, access physical and mental health services; save money for future needs; obtain nutritious food and acquire basic necessities such as clothing; and build strong, stable families.

Due to Citywide factors, such as a severe affordable housing crisis, a growing economy based largely on low-wage jobs, and a dysfunctional health care system (one out of five City residents do not have health care), the City’s belief is that not all families can or will achieve self-sufficiency in its ideal form. Thus, service programs must help families move or make progress along a continuum toward self-sufficiency.

The City will continue to focus on self-sufficiency as its primary anti-poverty approach through the Consolidated Plan, both for administering existing programs and implementing initiatives for new human service programs. Current programs that contribute to this strategy include the Family Development Networks (FDNs), the Neighborhood Action Program (NAP), the Domestic Violence Shelter Operations program; and the Youth and Family Centers network services. Each is explained in detail in this section.

Local anti-poverty priorities, as defined by the City in its annual Community Action Plan submission to the state of California for CSBG funding include:

Remove obstacles and solve problems that block the achievement of self-sufficiency, including self-sufficiency for families and individuals who are attempting to transition off of a California state program

Secure and retain meaningful employment Attain an adequate education, with particular attention toward improving literacy

skills of low-income families in Los Angeles, which may include family literacy initiatives;

Make better use of available income through incorporation of financial literacy training in the core services provided to City individuals and families;

Obtain and maintain adequate housing and a suitable living environment; Achieve greater participation in the affairs of the communities involved, including

the development of public and private grassroots partnerships with local law enforcement agencies, local housing authorities, private foundations, and other public and private partners;

Document best practices based on successful grassroots intervention; Strengthen and improve relationships with local law enforcement agencies,

including neighborhood or community policing efforts; Provide programs for the establishment of violence-free zones that would involve

youth development and intervention models; Provide after-school child care programs; and Make more effective use of, and to coordinate with, other programs.

Each of these goals is reflected in the anti-poverty approach and programs funded not only through CSBG, but also through the complementary use of Community Development Block Grant and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Entitlement programs.

Background – Poverty in Los Angeles

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 155 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaAccording to the 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, 20 percent of the people in the city of Los Angeles were living in poverty, and 27 percent of related children under 18 were living below the poverty level. These statistics show minor improvements compared to the 2003 overall poverty rate of 22.1% percent of all City residents, of which 30 percent were children under 18 living below the poverty level.

The percent of people 65 years old and over living in poverty, however, have increased from nine percent in 2003 to 13 percent in 2006. Additionally, the City’s level of poverty is significantly higher than the national level. In 2006, 13 percent of people in the nation were living in poverty. Eighteen percent of related children under 18 were living below the poverty level, compared with 10 percent of 65 years and older.

The City’s poverty crisis is further compounded by a far higher cost of living than in many other large urban areas. Current federal poverty guidelines are based on the assumption that 30 percent of household income is spent on food. While this equation may have been representative of expenditures in the 1960s, increased costs of housing, health care, and childcare have reduced funds spent for food to one sixth of the family’s budget.

Based on the existing Federal Poverty Guidelines, 4.8 million Californians, or 13.3% of the state population, have income levels below the Federal Poverty Level threshold of $20,650 for a family of four. This is significantly less than the minimum $54,000 annual income needed for a family of four living in Los Angeles to be considered “self-sufficient” (according to the National Economic Development Law Center).

Affordable housing continues to be a significant issue facing city residents, especially low-income populations. In 2006 the median monthly housing cost for mortgage owners was $2,313 and $939 for renters in Los Angeles. Approximately 57-58 percent of all owners with mortgages and renters spend 30 percent or more of their household income on housing. Nationally, 37 percent of owners with mortgages and 50 percent of renters spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing. (U.S. Census Bureau)

In addition to a higher cost of living, Los Angeles faces a growing unskilled workforce that will be unable to compete for jobs paying living wages and benefits. According to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 27 percent of people 25 years and over did not graduate from high school. In several Los Angeles high schools, drop-out rates exceed 50% or more of the student population. It is estimated that the lifetime earnings for the average high school dropout residing in Los Angeles is $564,000 compared to $915,000 for a high school graduate, a 38 percent difference. Furthermore, a high school dropout will earn a staggering $1.44 million less than a college graduate over a lifetime.

With seven of the City’s Community Planning Areas (CPAs) experiencing a percentage of youth in poverty in excess of 10% - Southeast, Westlake, Boyle Heights, South Los Angeles, Wilmington, West Adams, and North and East Central, there is a tremendous need to align the City’s anti-poverty efforts to meet the educational and training needs of young adults if the cycle of poverty is to be broken. High rates of linguistic isolation, lack of a high school diploma or GED, and substantial numbers of single parent families within Los Angeles communities all contribute to furthering poverty and contributing to a growing number of working poor in Los Angeles.

One Out of Five Report (2004)

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 156 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe economic impact of the education shortfall particularly affects Los Angeles youth. A recent study found that 100,000 of the City’s young people between the ages of 19 and 24 years were “out of school and out of work”. The mismatch between youths and education will significantly hinder this population’s development of marketable skills, thereby limiting future employment opportunities and reducing lifetime earning potential.

Of critical importance, the “One Out of Five” report issued in November 2004 brought home sharply the need for comprehensive youth workforce training and jobs for young adults between 16 and 24. Findings of the study included:

One out of five 16-24 year olds in the city of Los Angeles is out of work; Young residents of Los Angeles city had a school enrollment rate of 52 percent

compared to the state average of 57 percent The school enrollment rate of young adults in Los Angeles city varies widely by

race, ethnic origin and nativity status, from Asians (72%) to Hispanics (45%); foreign-born (42%) and native-born (61%)

Sizable general gaps in school enrollment and education of young adults which grows wider along the educational ladder.

The percentage of out-of-school youth who are dropouts in the City is 51%, compared to the state rate (40%) and the United States as a whole (30%);

The share of dropouts among out-of-school youth in the City varies significantly by gender, race and nativity status – males, 54%, females, 46%; foreign-born, 66%; native-born 31%; Hispanics, 65%; African-American, 37%; Whites, 15%; and Asians, 12%.

An indicator of an adverse labor market situation among young adults was the incidence of labor market problems among them. Individuals were classified as having labor market problems if they were unemployed, earned wages below the 4-person poverty line in a full-time job, working part-time involuntarily, or were not seeking work but wanted to work. In 2000, 38 percent of young adults in California had encountered one of the four labor market problems; in 2003, this percentage had increased to nearly 44 percent. These percentages are estimated to be similar to those of the City which quite likely exceed them.

In addition, the report found the employment rates of young adults in Los Angeles declined sharply between 2000 and 2003, evidenced by an approximate 4% drop in the employment rate; the teen employment rate in the same period declined by over 7 percentage points. Non-enrolled young adults in Los Angeles city were less likely (59%) to be employed than their counterparts in the nation as a whole (69%). A very close association was found to exist between education and employment. Young adults with a higher level of education were considerably more likely to be employed.

Even more alarming is that the incidence of disconnected youth – those that were not working and not attending school in 2000 (the report uses the 2000 Census as its baseline) - was as high as 25% for Hispanics, and 22% for African-Americans. Disconnected youth were disproportionately likely to be poorly educated. In the City, the percentage distribution of disconnected youth by educational attainment amounted to 62% for high school dropouts, 24% for high school graduates – but only 3% for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 157 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaRole of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in Furthering Consolidated Plan Anti-Poverty GoalsBoth the CDBG and WIA programs work together to address the challenges to City youth in poverty addressed in one out of five report.

For example, the Year 8 Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, prepared by the Workforce Development Division of CDD, includes WIA (Workforce Investment Act) and City General Fund requests for:

Youth OneSource Youth Opportunity System Centers – 14 sites; $11,550,170 in WIA funds requested for 07-08

LA County Summer Jobs Program, $2 million requested in WIA 07-08 funds City General Fund Youth Program $2 million requested in WIA 07-08 funds Learn and Earn Funding Program $2 million requested in WIA 07-08 funds Youth Opportunity Movement (YOM) – CDBG requested for 34th Year Students for Higher Education $196,000 in WIA 07-08 funds Cash for College $80,000 requested in WIA 07-08 funds (also CDBG) Hire LA 18-24 – job pledges from area employers; recruit, evaluate and place

4,000 youth 18-24 into Hire LA job pledge pool; 1,000 youth participate in Work Readiness Certification Program; 2000 youth secure employment;

Intensive Transitions - linking youth ex-offenders to education and employment activities; $200,000 requested in WIA 07-08 funds

Youth Leadership Council - $20,000 requested in WIA 07-08 funds

Youth education and employment programs have been given high priority by the City for CDBG funding in each year of the previous (2003-2008) Consolidated Plan.

Other City Wide Anti-Poverty InitiativesIn January 2007, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, as Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Task Force on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, announced the findings and recommendations of a report entitled “Repairing the Economic Ladder: A Transformative Investment Strategy to Reduce Poverty and Expand America’s Middle Class.” The 29-page report outlined three critical investment strategies at the federal, state, local, and private enterprise level to reduce poverty. The three strategies focus on high quality public education; life-long education and skills development; and increasing economic opportunities.

The Los Angeles City Council has also continued efforts to update the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The proposed update would take into account regional differences and a broader self-sufficiency index that more accurately reflects the household budget expenditures and the diverse household composition.

Previous years of reduced federal funding and the broader effects of wider issues, such as gang violence and academic failure, has required the City to re-evaluate the City’s poverty strategies, programmatic approach and management.

Poverty and Gang Activity – Role of City Gang Prevention and Intervention ProgramsA 2006 Citywide Gang Activity Reduction Strategy Report conducted by the Advancement Project reinforced the high correlation between the rate of poverty and low per capita income with the concentration of crime activity. The report referenced a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) study, which stated 90 percent of the surveyed 4,000

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 158 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiastudents living in high crime areas were being exposed to violence either as a victim or witness. Twenty-seven percent of the exposed students showed symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, with 16 percent testing as clinically depressed.

The report by the Advancement Project called for immediate action in the poorest areas of the city and highlighted the need for better coordination of programs to strengthen their impact and maximize resources. As a result, the 33rd Year Consolidated Plan provided funding for the City Controller to engage the services of an independent consultant to perform a review and recommendation for the future design of the City’s anti-gang and social service delivery system. Pending the result and recommendations from the City Controller, the City will continue to fund existing programs in the interim period.

City Poverty SurveyIn June 2007, CDD conducted a Community Poverty Survey. The impetus for the survey stems for its planned use in the Community Action Plan (CAP), which is an annual requirement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for allocation of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds. However, the survey is of critical value for other purposes, particularly in anticipation of restructuring the HSDS, and to help fulfill the spirit of HUD Consolidated Planning requirements for conduct of a Needs Assessment.

The survey was disseminated in seven Community Improvement Planning Areas (CIPAs), Neighborhood Action Plan (NAP) agencies; at town halls, health and safety fairs, and at City task force meetings. The survey was also disseminated to the print and television media, posted on the City and CDD Web Sites, and E-mailed out to over 1,100 agencies on the HSFD mailing list. The number of surveys returned was 1,138 of 10,000 disseminated, or an 11% response rate; Spanish responses constituted 30%, and long form versions of the returned surveys constituted 40% of responses.

Respondents identified five key needs to end poverty:

Affordable housing (659) Better schools (581) Good-paying jobs (551) Increase the minimum wage from $6.75 an hour (447) Safer neighborhoods (444)

The next top areas above 350 votes included: affordable health care, greater access to higher education, more youth programs, and jobs with employer-paid health benefits. The most common responses included education, jobs/employment training, higher paying wages, and affordable housing.

The majority of respondents identified lack of affordable housing, lack of high quality public education, limited job opportunities and a high cost of living as the main reasons why people in Los Angeles stay poor. A common theme in the responses is that salaries and wages are stagnant, benefits are or becoming non-existent; and the cost of living is making it impossible for many Angelenos to make ends meet (59% of respondents).

82 percent of respondents specified that at least $40,000 a year would be needed for a family of four to make ends meet; 31% of that total identified the threshold even higher at or above $50,000. This is very consistent with a recent report (2007) issued by the nonprofit California Budget Project organization, which concluded that a two working parent family in the city of Los Angeles would need an annual total income of $74,044.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 159 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe study identified housing expenses as averaging $1,269 per month or 20% of the total expenses per month; this estimate, however, may be quite conservative

52 percent of the respondents identified themselves as at or below the federal poverty guideline ($20,650 for a family of four) and 21% as very low income. 80% of the respondents identified themselves as working, and 37% as not working or working part-time.

The Role of Los Angeles County in the City’s Anti-Poverty StrategyThe Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) provides programs designed to both alleviate hardship and promote health, personal responsibility, and economic independence. DPSS provides several benefits and services to low-income residents of Los Angeles County and the city of Los Angeles:

Temporary financial assistance and employment services for families and individuals.

Free and low-cost health care insurance for families with children, pregnant women and aged/blind/disabled adults;

Food benefits for families and individuals;

In-home services for elderly and disabled individuals; and Financial assistance and advocacy for federal disability benefits for disabled

individuals.

These services are provided locally throughout the many communities that comprise Los Angeles County, including the city of Los Angeles.

While the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) are the primary providers of services for those in poverty, including General Assistance, GAIN, GROW Employment and Training, the National School Lunch Program, CalWORKs, CAPI (Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants), and other programs, CDD has since its inception in 1977 provided a social safety net of services for those residents in greatest need, that complements and strengthen County options for assistance, and through use of a variety of approaches.

Recently, City and County staff began discussions on how the City and County can increase linkages between the County’s Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) programs such as food stamps and welfare and the City’s Family Development Network (FDN) and the Youth and Family Centers (YFCs). Initial ideas include training FDN staff on how to pre-screen clients for referral to DPSS agencies.

City Living Wage Ordinance – An Important Anti-Poverty ToolA 2006 study by University of California economists found that the Los Angeles living wage ordinance has raised pay for nearly 10,000 jobs, with minimal employment loss.

Nearly 70 percent of workers affected by the law are low-income and only 4 percent are teenagers, according to the report, which was funded in part by the Ford Foundation.

Examining the Evidence: The Impact of the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance on Workers and Businesses offers a definitive analysis of the City’s experience. It is the first

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 160 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiasuch study to use random sample surveys of affected workers and businesses - the only method that assures accurate results.

In 1997, Los Angeles became one of the first major cities to pass a living wage law. The City's policy currently requires city contractors, among others, to pay workers $10.03 an hour, or $8.78 plus a $1.25 contribution to health benefits (the wage is adjusted annually). It also provides workers with 12 paid days off and ten unpaid days off per year.

The total of 10,000 jobs in Los Angeles where pay was increased due to the living wage is among the largest in the nation, after New York and San Francisco. The majority of jobs were at Los Angeles International Airport and Ontario International Airport. The average mandatory pay increase was $1.50 per hour, or $2,600 per year.

The study also finds that businesses have experienced some positive results, including declines in employee turnover and absenteeism. On average, affected firms recovered 16 percent of the increased cost of the mandatory wage increase through turnover reductions.

Employers have adapted to the remaining costs in a variety of ways. These include cutting fringe benefits and overtime, hiring more highly trained workers, cutting profits and passing on costs to the city or to the public.

One objective of the living wage policy was not achieved: the law has not prompted firms to set up health insurance plans for their workers, although some firms have improved their existing plans or extended coverage to more workers, affecting 2,200 jobs.

While Examining the Evidence finds that workers and their families experienced measurable gains from the living wage, it also shows that many workers still struggle to get by. Thirty-one percent of affected workers lack health benefits, and 44 percent rely on at least one government assistance program.

Living wage laws have proliferated around the nation, partly as a response to the stagnation of state and federal minimum wages, as well as to the increasing privatization of city services as a means to cut costs. These laws are designed to remove the incentive for government to contract out jobs to low-wage employers, thus leveling the playing field for city contractors.

More than a dozen cities, including Miami, Phoenix, Memphis, Little Rock and Richmond, are currently considering living wage legislation.

Breaking the Cycle of Poverty through Provision of Affordable HousingOf critical importance in breaking the poverty cycle are the roles played by the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) and the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) . LAHD supports the development of new affordable housing; enforces state health and safety codes and tenant protection ordinances, works to preserve the City’s existing housing stock, enables low and moderate income Angelenos to achieve the American dream of homeownership; develops new policies and programs to address the City’s housing needs, and removes barriers to affordable housing due to discrimination and predatory lending, and other factors that prohibit poor residents from obtaining decent, affordable housing. HACLA provides housing to thousands of extremely low income City

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 161 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaresidents, and Section 8 rental assistance to over 50,000 households who would otherwise be at risk of homelessness.

Los Angeles has become a City where rental and for-sale housing is well beyond the reach of the working poor as well as moderate-income residents, which results in increased overcrowding and little disposable income for the other necessities of life, such as health care. This situation prevents poor individuals and families from breaking out of the cycle of poverty.

At the federal level, reduced Section 8 payments and other federal housing subsidies to landlords allow owners to “opt out” of contracts that keep rents affordable, with the potential of further aggravating the high rates of poverty experienced by the working poor, as well as low-income elderly and disabled residents on fixed incomes. For those who have obtained a job and are leaving public housing, there are few if any affordable housing options.

Perhaps there is no more important aspect to breaking the poverty cycle than to assure decent, safe, housing for the City’s most vulnerable residents, the working poor, and persons with special needs including persons with disabilities and elderly residents.

The City, using CDBG and ESG funds, provides a comprehensive “safety net” of services for low-income residents, many of whom meet the Federal definition of poverty.

Human Services Delivery System (HSDS)The Human Services Delivery System is the City’s primary program for reducing the number of poverty-level families. The HSDS funds multiple nonprofit organizations located throughout the city through competitive proposal process. The HSDS is comprised of two types of programs: Family Development Networks (FDNs), or consortia; and the Neighborhood Action Program (NAP) that is composed of individual human service agencies. FDNs focus on long-term family case management to increase economic self-sufficiency. Each FDN offers clients access to pre-employment support services, financial literacy services, child care services, health and legal services, educational opportunities, social and emotional support through counseling and other services as needed. 

The measurable accomplishment of the Human Services Delivery System (HSDS) is the number of unduplicated clients served. The HSDS uses the State of California National Performance Indicators (NPIs) to measure the outcome of program services in addition to the number of clients served. The NPIs capture various outcomes, including the number of unemployed clients who obtained employment, the number who received emergency assistance, and the number of people who learn and exhibit improved family functioning skills.

The HSDS is cost-effective because contractors selected to provide human services in one of the two programs -- FDNs and NAPs -- are selected through a Request for Proposal process that establishes minimum program requirements and capacity, and ensures that City residents receive high-quality services. Because services vary from more expensive day-long child care to relatively inexpensive food bank services, it is not possible to estimate a cost of services for the system. The following provides a more in-depth explanation of the roles and responsibilities of FDNs and NAPs in the City’s anti-poverty strategy.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 162 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaFamily Development Networks (FDNs)The Family Development Networks directly support the Mayor’s goal to reduce poverty through a long-term investment in young people. The foundation for young people’s development and academic achievement is rooted in increased opportunities and family stability. The FDN program assists city families in addressing long-term, multiple service needs through long-term family case management designed to remove multiple barriers/obstacles, and solve problems at the family level. FDNs are encouraged to provide services to families who receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and these clients are automatically eligible for the program.

Each of the City’s 12 FDNs is comprised of three or more community-based organizations working as a collaboration to bring a comprehensive array of services to lower-income families. Core services include:

Case management for families, including their children and individuals requiring intensive, longer-term interventions to achieve established goals for personal and/or economic well-being. Case management also includes the provision of Youth Advocacy Program (YAP) services to the City’s at-risk youth and their families referred by the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles City Attorney, and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Coordination with the City’s WorkSource and OneSource Centers for employment training, referral and placement services. The FDNs are required to work with WIA-funded City WorkSource centers or other job training/job placement providers to ensure clients obtain and/or retain meaningful employment. This is done to leverage, rather than duplicate, these important economic development tools. Ongoing coordination with the OneSource Centers directly addresses the importance of youth employment to reduce the risk of youth delinquency and gang violence.

Information and referral, including self-service activities, advocacy or staff intervention necessary to connect consumers to the services they need and the assignment of staff for a less extensive period to provide services directly or assist participants in obtaining services. The City continues to support a multi-benefit initiative that ensure service providers are aware of all County, Federal and State benefits available for their clients. The multi-benefit initiative, called ACCESS, includes information on the States Healthy Families insurance program, the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and College Financial Aid Resources.

Financial literacy for adults and young people, for addressing prevalent issues such as predatory lending, high levels of consumer debt, and low savings rate. This component assists clients in accessing mainstream financial institutions and services, while promoting long-term asset development as a strategy to exit the cycle of poverty.

The Individual Development Account (IDA) program, which allows participants to purchase approved assets after demonstrating budgeting and saving skills.

The Youth Advocacy Program (YAP) is an integral component. At the request of the LAPD, FDN staff may be co-located in police bureaus whenever possible to strengthen relationships with local juvenile officers and ensure that more youth are diverted into the YAP program rather than processed through the criminal justice system.

Neighborhood Action Program (NAP)The Neighborhood Action Program (NAP) component of the HSDS involves organizations that target special community needs or fill identified gaps in service, with an emphasis on

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 163 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaservices for youth development and education. According to a 2007 Education Week Report, approximately 70 percent of ninth graders graduate in four years nation- and state-wide. Graduation rates among students enrolled in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), however, drastically drop to 45.3 percent.

LAUSD is ranked in the bottom fifth among the nation’s largest school districts. Approximately, 75 percent of LAUSD students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. A significant number of NAPs provide services that directly address the need for programs that provide youth with a safe after-school environment and activities that promote academic achievement. The City currently funds more than 70 NAP contractors throughout the city. Various NAPs also provide high-need services such as childcare, services for disabled children and adults, crisis intervention, and family counseling.

Both the FDN and NAP programs provide advocacy services such as support for disabled adults and legal representation to assist low-income tenants with resolving illegal evictions and/or slum conditions.

Some NAP programs either directly provide or coordinate with other providers to secure food, clothing, shelter, products for basic hygiene, and other emergency assistance to meet immediate and urgent family and individual needs.

Funding for the HSDSFunding for the HSDS comes primarily from CDBG and approximately $5 million annually from the CSBG program. The state of California Office of Traffic Safety provides funds for child and street safety programs. Each year, the City combines CDBG funding for the HSDS with Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funding to maximize financial support to nonprofit partners in the HSDS. Blending of these two program resources better targets CDBG funds to the most economically disadvantaged areas of the City, because the CSBG program only targets poverty populations. The City will continue to leverage other funding resources to improve the ability of the HSDS to continue serving persons in poverty, and to encourage family self-sufficiency.

Youth and Family CentersOne of the cornerstones of the City’s safety net of services for low-income individuals and families is the Youth and Family Center program, with sites located throughout Los Angeles, including the communities of Cypress Park, Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Pacoima, Mid-cities, South Los Angeles, and Venice.

The Youth Center (YFC) program consists of eight facilities located throughout the City in ethnically diverse, low-income neighborhoods. Centers house an array of social services in response to needs identified by local residents. All YFCs are designated “Safe Havens” for area youth. The YFCs further the Mayor’s strategy by providing a safe and violence-free learning environment through a variety of youth programs, including mentoring and after-school tutoring, computer education, and continuation school(s).

Additional YFC core services are: English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction; Work Place Education (WESL); food distribution programs; narcotics and alcoholics anonymous programs; and information and referral services which meet community needs. Some of the City’s Neighborhood Councils are located in YFCs. The Councils facilitate the mobilization of neighborhoods around issues of safety and emergency response. YFCs

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 164 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaserve as a focal point to provide essential services for a 72-hour period in the event of a societal or natural disaster.

All services provided at the YFCs are provided as “in-kind” services in-lieu of rent or as reduced or free services for the public. CDBG funds provide staff and facility upkeep for the eight centers that house over 80 nonprofit organizations. The YFCs provide a stabilizing presence in the community and serve as conduits of information between or among governmental entities, local agencies, and predominantly low- to moderate-income residents. YFC staff also assists in planning and hosting community events such as Earthquake and Traffic Safety-fairs, Back to School Resource fairs, community clean-ups and neighborhood holiday celebrations.

The offerings of the YFCs are varied and are designed to match the needs of their neighborhoods. For example, the East Los Angeles YFC provides space for the Girls Today, Women Tomorrow mentoring project, which matches young area girls with successful area women to encourage the young girls to not only finish, but excel in their educational goals and to delay pregnancy. Community residents near the West Los Angeles YFC identified the need to help local youth improve their math skills when they found that students could not pass the required high school graduation tests. Concerned residents worked with YFC staff to establish classes and computerized math tutorials focusing on algebra and geometry at the YFC.

Spotlight on the Lucille Beserra Roybal YFC The activities of the Lucille Beserra Roybal Youth and Family Center (LBR YFC) put into focus the value and need for the YFC system in Los Angeles. The LBR YFC is a comprehensive information and referral service center serving the Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles communities, areas characterized by extensive poverty, overcrowding, and unemployment. The Center helps strengthen families and creates safer neighborhoods by offering comprehensive human services either on-site or through referrals to local area service providers. The center also offers specific services, selected to serve the needs of the local community.

The Center’s top priorities are directly aligned with the priorities of the Mayor of Los Angeles, which are to work toward becoming the safest big city in America by providing programs out of the facility that focus on public safety, “clean and green” programs, and neighborhood beautification services, after-school opportunities for children in the areas of tutoring and mentoring and providing adult education programs that are geared toward education and training of adults in an effort to create economic self-sufficiency.

The primary clientele of the LBR YFC are low-income families that reside within the 14 th

Council District, an area characterized by high unemployment and poverty. Clients visit the Center for its ability to address and meet their immediate needs in the areas of employment, food, shelter, after-school tutoring, mentoring and vocational services.Goals of the LBR YFC are comprehensive:

To serve as facilitator and advocate for the betterment and enrichment of the community.

To serve as a focal point for emergency needs, disaster relief, community programs and activities.

To assist youth, families and individuals in need to gain self-sufficiency and empowerment through education, employment, training and an array of human and social services.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 165 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaOver 7,500 participants go through the Center to receive one time or duplicated services within a one year time-table. A census tracking system is in place and maintained by LBR YFC personnel to ensure that all clientele that obtain services or is referred to a different service provider is tracked.

An additional purpose of the LBR YFC, as is the case with the other Centers, is to serve as liaison to the community through linking and coordination of available resources and services to the community, primarily to create a safe neighborhood and enhance the quality of life.

In working toward achieving its programmatic goals, the LBR YFC strategic objective is to link and coordinate available resources and community services to the community, to create a safe neighborhood and increase the quality of life by offering programs that focus on social and economic welfare, such as after school tutoring, mentoring, intern opportunities, community beatification projects and much more. Activities are focused on youth, families, and individuals needing self-sufficiency and empowerment, achieved at the Center through education, employment, training, athletics, and an array of human and social services.

The LBR YFC, and the YFC program as a whole, through the development of a strategic plan, will continue to be a pivotal and very much needed program for the city of Los Angeles. The ability to coordinate and collaborate with many multi-faceted social service programs, provides a one stop social service center for hundreds of thousands of families within the city of Los Angeles who are in need of employment, educational services, food, shelter, counseling and a vast arrays of other quality of life needs that are provided within the constraints of our facilities.

The LBR YFC is provided with the opportunity to apply and compete for additional federal, state, city or foundation funding would be able to programmatically sustain itself, however it would be difficult. Other sources or revenue for the LBR YFC have come in the form of in-kind contributions obtained by LBRYFC management through relationship building.

Day Laborer ProgramThe Day Laborer Program allows persons seeking casual labor work to safely congregate, and be matched with employers seeking temporary workers. The main objective of the program is to reduce the number of day laborers who congregate in various areas of the City by having them congregate at fixed sites located in select areas. The Day Laborer program provides supervision of the site and community outreach. It does not intervene in the employment transaction between the day laborer and employer.

The Program directly supports the Mayor and City Council’s priority of increasing public safety through establishment of decent, safe and sanitary hiring sites for itinerant labor. The Day Laborer Program uses approximately $330,000 in City General Purpose funding to augment CDBG program funding ($1.2 million for the 33rd Program Year). This program increases public safety by providing fixed hiring sites in selected areas of the City where persons participating in the casual labor force can safely congregate to solicit employment from residents/businesses seeking day labor.

Contractor staff members at the site supervise workers. The staff is responsible for ensuring that the site is safe, clean, drug, alcohol, and violence free. They assist the employer in selecting a day labor worker in an organized and safe manner. They coordinate various on-site activities. Staff also provides community outreach services. The outreach services are designed to bring the day laborers and employers to the site,

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 166 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiacoordinate with the businesses that attract the day laborers, and work with community members and organizations to address local issues and concerns related to the presence of day laborers.

Services include English as a Second Language (ESL) classes; legal counseling regarding immigration issues and employment; HIV awareness, education and referral for testing; medical examinations, alcohol, drugs and sexual diseases counseling and referrals; referral to various other services; clothing, food, and toys.

This program also funds community mediation services to resolve issues created by the presence of Day Laborers on the streets and in the neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Additional resources developed from other nonprofit and private sector partners include space for the Day Laborer fixed sites, ESL classes, workshops on health and legal issues and clothes and food donations.

In August 2007, CDD established its eighth and newest Day Laborer Center at the Van Nuys Home Depot at Roscoe Boulevard and Balboa Place in the San Fernando Valley. The City placed the center at this location in response to community safety concerns, and to upgrade working conditions for casual laborers.

The Center staff is also conducting outreach to Home Depot customers to inform them of the day laborer center.

Employment Technology Centers (formerly Community Service Centers)

HACLA’s Employment Technology Centers (ETC) are a combination of existing Community Service Centers and Computer Learning Centers. These newly named centers offer a combination of social services, individual and family development, educational related activities, computer education, probation intervention programming, community events as well as employment and training opportunities offered through the Workforce Investment Act program. Four of the Employment Technology Centers (San Fernando Gardens, Ramona Gardens, Mar Vista Gardens, Jordan Downs, and Imperial Courts) offer entrance into the WorkSource center service continuum providing a host of employment related services.

The 11 ETC centers are all located on public housing property. Sites include: Avalon Gardens, Imperial Courts, Independent Square, Jordan Downs, Mar Vista Gardens, Nickerson Gardens, Pueblo del Rio, Ramona Gardens, Rose Hills Courts, San Fernando Gardens and William Mead Homes.

The ETC service design allows leveraging of resources and combination of efforts to help promote a comprehensive service design. The ETC operates using a combination of in-kind and funding streams including: Housing Based Day Supervision under the auspices of the LA County Department of Probation, DOL WIA funds allocated locally through the Community Development Department, HUD ROSS Grants, and HACLA operating funds.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 167 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaLow Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Coordination (91.315 (k))

1. (States only) Describe the strategy to coordinate the Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) with the development of housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income families.

3-5 Year Strategic Plan LIHTC Coordination response:

NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS - Specific Special Needs Objectives (91.215) 1. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve

over a specified time period.

2. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan.

The City will continue to utilize CDBG, HOME, ESG, HOPWA and other sources of federal, state, and county financial resources to fund a wide variety of programs that provide critical services and housing to those with special needs, including seniors and the frail elderly; victims of domestic violence; the homeless; those at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS; and the physically and developmentally disabled. Each is described below. The City has developed specific priorities, objectives, and outcomes for all programs and project activities serving those with special needs.

Housing Needs of Persons with Disabilities

LAHD uses several different approaches to the housing needs of persons with disabilities. In addition to financing the development of affordable housing for a variety of persons with special needs, both physical and mental disabilities, LAHD also promotes policy change via local legislation and the zoning code, through its citywide fair housing program. LAHD’s Preservation Programs provide rehabilitation loans and grants which often pay for physical accessibility needs of low-income homeowners and renters aging in place, such as ramps, widened doorways and reconfigured bathrooms, which enable them to continue to live independently. Also, the countywide HOPWA program is administered by LAHD, which serves persons with disabilities.

The Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP), established in the 31st program year by four City agencies – the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD), the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRALA), the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) – is a partnership to stem the tide of homelessness. A ten-year Cooperation Agreement governs the administration of their initial contribution to the Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP) as well as all future allocations.

In October 2006, the PSHP held its first funding round in with $50 million in funding. LAHD received and reviewed five PSHP projects containing 274 units, and has recommended that Letters of Commitments for $22.5 million be approved, which will leverage $58 million in outside funding sources ($2.6 for each $1 invested by the City). In addition, $28 million

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 168 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiain operating subsidies funds have been provided by HACLA in the form of Section 8 vouchers.

Additionally, the PSHP is working with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) and County agencies to provide the support services so crucial to ending the cycle of homelessness. This combination of permanent housing with on-site services has been proven to be one of the most effective solutions to homelessness. Alliances formed between the housing and service agencies help homeless people secure and keep the housing and services necessary to avoid falling into homelessness once again. Supportive Housing is the cornerstone of the current national movement to end homelessness. The City looks forward to working closely with HUD on the expansion of supportive housing stock in Los Angeles.

Given the extremely low incomes of many persons with special needs who rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is less than $900 per month in California, the importance of permanent, affordable, safe housing in their lives cannot be overemphasized. Service-enriched housing enables persons with special needs to live independently without the fear of becoming homeless.

Approximately half of the new rental units supported by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund serve persons with special needs, including those with chronic mental illness, emancipated foster youth with children, senior citizens and the frail elderly, persons with HIV/AIDS, and others. All proposed affordable housing developments for persons with special needs must show memoranda of understanding (MOU) or similar commitments with local social service agencies. Depending on the population served, case managers and other agency staff may work at the housing development site.

In addition, many of the housing developments financed by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund include childcare centers, community rooms and computer learning centers that facilitate after school tutoring programs, and other services provided by local agencies. Such activities facilitate family self-sufficiency and educational attainment by residents as well as low-income neighbors from the surrounding community.

Seniors and the Frail Elderly

The Department of Aging (DOA), as an Area Agency on Aging (AAA) under the State of California Department of Aging, has long been uniquely positioned to provide affordable services to low-income seniors, because it receives Older Americans Act and Older California Act grant funds. The designation of "AAA" implies that the Department is the focal point of senior services within the City.

The Department, since its inception in 1993, has been providing services to seniors and the frail elderly in the areas of transportation, nutrition, care management, information and referral, to name a few. The Adult Day Care program was established in 2002, and the EARS (Early Alert Response System) program in 1987.

CDBG funds are leveraged to provide critically needed services in a cost-effective way to benefit both seniors and caregivers. In fact, leveraging has resulted in an estimated 25% savings in operational cost compared to similar programs. With both the resources and the knowledge of programs, the Department has been able to identify the most efficient use of CDBG funds and is better able to leverage resources.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 169 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaAs a result, the economic opportunities created are substantial. Caregivers that are able to work as a result of participating in the programs are able to live productive lives. as an example, 141 full- time employed caregivers earning $7.50 an hour working 8 hours a day for 249 days earn $2,106,540; 48 part-time caregivers earning $7.50 an hour working 20 hours a week for 52 weeks earn $374,400. The total economic activity contributed by the adult day care programs in this case is $2,480,940. Therefore, Departmental programs are able to make major contributions to families, caregivers and communities.

The Community Based Development Organizations (CBDO) designated activity component of the Aging Services Delivery System (ASDS) provides programs designed for low-to-moderate income seniors with physical, emotional and/or cognitive impairments, thereby requiring assistance and supervision to remain independent. The program provides respite for caregivers who

Senior Counts – 2000 Census

The City has one of the highest concentrations of seniors age 60 and older within the United States. Of this total, many are considered low-to-moderate income and qualify for benefits under federal guidelines. It is therefore the responsibility of the Department of Aging to provide unique, creative and cost-effective and efficient services to city seniors.

Based on the 2000 Census there are 472,792 seniors (60+) in Los Angeles. The racial and ethnic composition of seniors is: Whites 242,868 (51.37%), Hispanic 96,208 (20.35%), Black 62,151 (13.14%), Asian 59,853 (12.66%), Multi-Racial 9,507 (2.01%), and All Others 2,205 (0.47%). There are 65,127 (13.77%) seniors that are low-income, 170,018 (35.96%) that are frail elderly, and 229,924 (48.63%) that are minority.

Extent and Type of NeedThe LADOA recently completed a mandatory needs assessment. The Older Adult survey identified many issues by respondents; their greatest concerns included accessing information, transportation, and finding legal advice. The cost of medication, long-term insurance and accessing adequate health care were the most common problems expressed by older adults. Of the major financial concerns, adequate income to live on and the cost of energy/utilities and housing were of paramount importance. Social issues of primary importance were isolation and taking care of an older adult.

These issues obviously cannot completely be answered, but augmenting CDBG funding would allow the department to expand its projects, alleviating many of these needs. CDBG provides funding for the Adult Day Support Center, Emergency Alert Response System, Legal Services, and Alternative Housing for the Elderly projects, which, as demonstrated by goal achievement yearly for the 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan, have been highly successful. However, additional funds are needed to expand programs to serve more seniors and their families who are in need of these services.

Increased funding could be used to extend senior center hours, and to hire additional personnel to accommodate the working family caregivers. Seniors and families have requested service hours before 8 a.m. and after 4 p.m., and weekend services which would enable family caregivers to continue working, and relieve them of the financial burden of paying for day care for their loved ones. Additional funds could also be used to provide more training for social workers, more educational programs for the caregivers, and to expand outreach to the minority community.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 170 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaExisting Programs for Seniors and the Frail ElderlyThe City of Los Angeles’ Department of Aging (LADOA) is a designated Area Agency on Aging (AAA) of the State of California. There are 33 AAAs in the State of California. The State Department of Aging (CDA) is the designated State Unit on Aging (SUA) and oversees the 33 AAAs. The funding of Older American Act programs and Older California Act programs for all statewide AAAs is allocated through the CDA. The County of Los Angeles is also a AAA (County AAA).

The LADOA is responsible for programs, services and advocacy for all seniors living in the City. The Los Angeles County AAA is responsible for programs, services and advocacy for seniors living in the County of Los Angeles (incorporated and non-incorporated areas) with the exception of residents of the City of Los Angeles. Consequently, LADOA and the County AAA oversee the same programs but with different amounts of funding (funding is based on senior population and the population of senior characteristics such as minority population, low-income and below population, frail-population and population of those 60 years and older).

The LADOA uses the RFP process to select contractors of OAA, OCA and CDBG programs. The non-profits are the LADOA’s community based partners who we collaborate with for the provision of services, including advocacy, to seniors. Interaction with non-profits and the County AAA is realized through participation and collaboration in community events and data collection.Current programs offered by the Department of Aging and available for seniors and the frail elderly are: Information and Assistance, Case Management, Congregate Meals, Home-Delivered Meals, Ombudsman, Elder Abuse Prevention, Health Screening, Outreach, Legal Assistance, Caregiver Support Groups, Family Caregiver Training, Health Promotion/Disease Prevention, Transportation, Home Secure, Emergency Alert Response System, Alzheimer’s Day Care & Resource Center, Senior Employment Training Program, and Adult Day Support Centers.

LADOA receives funding from the federal Older Americans Act, Older Californians Act, CDBG, Department of Transportation, LADOA Foundation, and the City’s General Fund. Over the past few years, the funding level has remained unchanged while the senior population continues to grow as the baby boomer generation ages.

It is estimated that there will be 622,456 people over the age 60 by 2010, with the fastest population growth of those seniors age 85 and older. This growing population will magnify the need to expand existing transportation service programs and compel greater cooperation and coordination between transportation programs which travel between the City and County.

The inadequate provision of health care coverage and accessibility as healthcare costs increase will require more education about health promotion and disease prevention. Additionally, a lack of affordable housing for seniors continues to exist, and the construction of new housing for seniors needs to be developed in areas that are close in proximity to health centers and shopping areas to facilitate accessibility for seniors. Eviction protection and segregation also needs to be addressed for the aging population.

The Department of Aging receives, in addition to CDBG funds, Federal Older Americans Act funds, State Older Californians Act funds, and City General Fund dollars. The Department is accountable to both the Mayor and City Council, and must also comply with California Department of Aging regulations, state regulations, and federal regulations as a

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 171 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaCity entity. The Department must monitor the limited clientele status of its participants in the Aging Services Delivery System to assure compliance with CDBG and CBDO regulations, as well as the contract goals and standards for administrative and financial management systems jointly established with its agencies.

Through the Management Information System, program activity is measured on a monthly basis, and reported to management. Semiannually, performance measurement reports are prepared and evaluated for each contracted agency in respect to the contracted services.

Project activities are carried out through multiple nonprofit organizations located in the City. Project progress is monitored through routine extensive desk review, which consists of reviewing monthly expenditure and service level reports and quarterly program performance reports. These measurements are in place to ensure that contractors are in compliance with the scope of work and units of service as contracted.

The following services for seniors will be funded with CDBG :

Alternative Living for the Aged – This program provides housing and roommate matching services to seniors through the sharing of housing costs between seniors. This program provides alternative shelter that is affordable and helps seniors avoid homelessness.

The Emergency Alert Response System (EARS) – This program provides security to older adults who live alone and who, in the event of an emergency, have not the capacity to respond to a life threatening emergency in a manner that would save their life. The equipment allows the senior to contact an emergency responder at the push of a button that is worn around the client’s wrist or another part of their body. It provides stability for families who otherwise may be forced to live with their family member (or vice versa) which would impact on finding and/or maintaining a job due to the care giving responsibilities that would be created. Provides security for the economic future of the community.

Adult Day Care Programs – This program provides a safe, supervised setting for seniors who are challenged with debilitating physical and emotional conditions and are unable to care for themselves without a custodial presence (family caregiver). The program provides the caregiver an opportunity to maintain employment and securing the economic future of the community.

Domestic Violence Shelter Operations (DVSO)The 2003-2008 Five-Year Consolidated Plan Goals referenced the need for services and funding for special needs populations that are prone to victimization. Included in these populations were persons that have experienced domestic abuse and violence directed toward them or their children and that are in immediate need of shelter and supportive services. The need for such services for victims of domestic abuse and their families is still very much in evidence and will continue to be a critical element of CDBG programs assisting those with special needs.

The following information on reported domestic violence incidents to the Los Angeles Police Department is provided by the State of California, Attorney General’s office. There has been a steady decline in the total number of domestic violence calls, and those that involved dangerous weapons. However, the City still leads the state in the number of

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 172 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiareported domestic violence incidents; much work remains to be done to assure that this downward trend continues.

Jurisdiction

2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

Total Calls

Involved firearms,

knives or other dangerous weapons

Total CallsInvolved Firearms,

knives or other dangerous weapons

Total Calls

Involved Firearms,

knives or other dangerous weapons

Total Calls

Involved Firearms, knives or

other dangerous weapons

Total Calls

Involved Firearms, knives or

other dangerous weapons

Total Calls

Involved Firearms, knives or

other dangerous weapons

Los Angeles 27,539 4,43231,163 5,399 33,205 5,461

34,760 5,328 35,740 5,261 36,801 5,241

The City has set aside approximately $3 million in CDBG funds yearly to provide funding for domestic violence agencies. The City’s DVSO program is a key component of the Human Service Delivery System (HSDS). Assistance offered by the City’s Domestic Violence Shelters to victims and their children ranges from emergency and transitional shelter services, psychological counseling, job preparation/readiness, job search assistance, financial management, parenting skills, support with legal assistance, schooling for children, clothing and other household supplies, coordination with placement in long term housing, among other services needed to enhance their personal stability and improve their economic opportunities.

Emergency shelters offer immediate, short-term refuge from an imminent dangerous or life-threatening environment for up to 90 days in a confidential setting. Transitional shelters extend this refuge in a safe and secure location to a minimum of six months. The primary focus in domestic violence transitional housing is helping victims develop the tools to gain self-sufficiency and independence.

DVSO is largely funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The DVSO provide exclusively to survivors of domestic violence and their families, an individualized case-managed plan of services that will ensure their immediate safety and, over the longer term, will motivate and equip them with appropriate skills and self-knowledge to support themselves and their families independent of the abuser.

A lack of affordable housing can dramatically reduce options for women experiencing domestic violence, trapping them in abusive situations of forcing them and their children to become homeless if they leave. Women living in poverty are especially vulnerable. Despite this, domestic violence often becomes so severe that women leave their homes, even when they have no place to go. In fact, domestic violence is a major cause of homelessness in this county. In support of the City’s anti poverty strategy, goals to protect and assist the City’s special needs populations include providing domestic violence survivors the opportunity to enroll in an Individual Development Accounts (IDA) program.

Additionally, several City departments work together to implement a Domestic Abuse Response Team (DART) Car unit. The purpose of the DART program is to respond to the scene of a domestic violence call and to provide intervention through family counseling, referrals to shelters, assistance in obtaining emergency protection orders (EPO), as well as other forms of intervention depending on the particular domestic violence situation.

The DART program consists of various community members and sworn personnel. Individual training is provided to officers assigned to the DART unit as well as handout material, and DART volunteers are required to complete a vigorous course of training. The goal of the program is to provide each volunteer with the fundamentals of handling

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 173 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiadomestic violence crimes. The curriculum consists of laws pertaining to domestic violence, safety issues, restraining orders and role-playing skits involving scenarios that might be encountered in the field.

DART includes three different models for operation; however, the purpose is crisis intervention and advocacy for the survivor. Community based organizations have domestic violence advocates on call 24 hours to:

Roll-out with Police on domestic violence calls; or Assist survivors after the perpetrator has been arrested and the scene is clear or

provide counseling and other services when available upon learning of a domestic violence call.

HIV and AIDS Prevention According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Office of AIDS Programs and Policy, an individual’s socioeconomic status shapes social and individual factors that affect care of individuals infected with HIV, the risk of HIV infection, and the high probability of relying on publicly funded health care services. Poverty and homelessness play a large role in individuals’ risk for infection with HIV.

When looking at homelessness, 51% of the homeless population resides within four council districts, CD1, CD8, CD 9 and CD 15. The rates of HIV in specific geographic locations of the city generally fall within those areas.

The Los Angeles County Office of AIDS Programs and Policy estimates that 60,000 individuals are living with HIV/AIDS in Los Angeles County. It is estimated that between 12,500 and 15,000 individuals are living with HIV but do not know that they are infected. Approximately fifty-three percent of those individuals living with HIV/AIDS in the county reside within the City of Los Angeles. The city makes up about 10% of the total size of the county, but carries the burden of more than half of HIV/AIDS cases.

The AIDS Coordinator’s Office (ACO) plays a vital role in framing the delivery of services for all the people living with HIV/AIDS in the city. With the bulk of the epidemic falling within the city, the ACO ensures that all services are funded and administered to provide the highest quality of services to residents.

The ACO has always been a national leader in the development and implementation of services for the HIV/AIDS community. Being distinctly apart from the County Office of AIDS allows the ACO flexibility to focus HIV/AIDS prevention efforts towards specific high-risk populations living within the city.

Though the ACO has a small operating budget, it has been able to leverage resources to develop programs that enable agencies to develop or augment innovative approaches to reaching people infected or affected with HIV/AIDS, technical assistance to community based organizations so they may develop their capacity to provide better programming, and special research studies that look into promising new approaches for HIV/AIDS prevention.

Special Research Studies, funded under the policy and planning category, identify underserved/hidden populations or areas of HIV/AIDS prevention in the city that are either under documented and/or under funded through traditional HIV/AIDS prevention and

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 174 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiaresearch. The office is currently working on three special research projects with university and other research partners:

The Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis study will look into the acceptability of an intervention that would give HIV negative individuals a single dose of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment prior to engagement in high-risk activity.

The Neighborhood Council study is looking into the attitudes and beliefs towards HIV/AIDS of members of city neighborhood councils, and how they can be engaged in prevention efforts.

The Syringe Exchange Evaluation study is developing an electronic data collection and evaluation system that will provide real time data and information on the city’s syringe exchange programs.

The Technical Assistance Program, funded under the policy and planning category, provides small grants, averaging $1,000 to $3,000, to community-based providers to fund one time prevention education and awareness programs and strengthen service delivery systems. The activities are done primary through workshops and seminars, median projects, publications and public forums. These projects must benefit city residents for the purpose of improving services to individuals infected or affected by HIV/AIDS.

The AIDS Prevention Program, through contractual services, provides health education and risk reduction programs, HIV counseling and testing, medical and social referrals, harm reduction programs tied to substance use treatment and related social service referrals, safer sex education for HIV positive individuals and people living with AIDS, substance abuse education and awareness, behavior modification programs and AIDS awareness skills building sessions, among others.

Prevention services are delivered through the release of a two-year Request for Proposal (RFP) and contracted primarily with non-profit community-based organizations. City residents most at risk for transmission or acquisition of HIV are targeted and served by the city’s prevention programs. The programs measure for clients’ understanding of HIV/AIDS, how it is transmitted, who is at risk, how to stay healthy, and how to make informed decisions.

Persons with Disabilities

Information from a recent Independent Living Needs Assessment that summarized data from the 2000 U.S. Census for Los Angeles County revealed that:

20.4% of the total population 5 years and older had a disability; 44.8% of the population 65 years and older had a disability; Of the population 21 to 64 years, 53.5% of persons with disabilities were employed

compared to 69.2% of persons without disabilities.

The 2005 American Community Survey revealed a significant number of disabled persons in Los Angeles that are at or below the poverty level, with the largest number being women in the 16-64 year age range (34,960 of 93,957 disabled reported, or 37.2%.

Results from a 2002-2003 Los Angeles County Health Survey indicated that 84.7% of persons with disabilities reported environmental barriers to independent living such as social isolation, lack of resource information, difficulty accessing needed health care due

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 175 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, Californiato physical location barriers, and unfair treatment or denial of services by a health care provider.

City Disability Providers Since its inception as a Los Angeles City Department in 1999, the Department on Disability (DOD) continues to move forward in the progression of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to ensure equal access to employment and reasonable accommodations as they apply to programs, services and facilities for Persons with Disabilities (PWD). The DOD provides information and referral services through the Computerized Information Center (CIC), funded through CDBG; and through the LILA information network (Living Independently in Los Angeles).

The DOD also provides policy recommendations and advocates for improved conditions for persons with disabilities. Funding for services to persons who have HIV/AIDS and HIV/AIDS prevention activities are also administered by the DOD.

The City provides funding through the Neighborhood Action Program (NAP) for the physically and developmentally disabled, and is the primary source of funding for programs that provide direct services to persons with disabilities other than HIV/AIDS. The HSDS supports Independent Living Centers, advocacy services for the disabled, rehabilitation services to help youth regain and improve their cognitive abilities; provide services for the visually impaired and persons with traumatic brain injuries, as well as provide home-based case managed care for parents with severely disabled children. The Workforce Development Division of CDD (WDD), in partnership with the Workforce Investment Board, supports the EmployABILITY Partnership, which is a collaboration of service professionals working together through the WorkSource system to help people with disabilities find jobs and build careers; and also assist the employers who hire them.

CDD has requested $90,000 in WIA funding for continued operation of the program for 2007-2008, which consists of staff training and technical assistance facilitating the development of improved assessment tools and service strategies to better serve the employment needs of persons with disabilities. This program received $160,000 in WIA funds for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.

Goals for the program include continuation of efforts to expand the EmployABILITY Partnership, maintain its website, and pursue additional funding sources, and provide for assistive technology.

Non-homeless Special Needs (91.205 (d) and 91.210 (d)) Analysis (including HOPWA)*

*Please also refer to the Non-homeless Special Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.

1. Estimate, to the extent practicable, the number of persons in various subpopulations that are not homeless but may require housing or supportive services, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, victims of domestic violence, and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify and describe their supportive housing needs. The jurisdiction can use the Non-Homeless Special Needs Table (formerly Table 1B) of their Consolidated Plan to help identify these needs.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 176 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California*Note: HOPWA recipients must identify the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families that will be served in the metropolitan area.

2. Identify the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but may or may not require supportive housing, i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction by using the Non-homeless Special Needs Table.

3. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs.

4. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.

5. To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing.

6. If the jurisdiction plans to use HOME or other tenant based rental assistance to assist one or more of these subpopulations, it must justify the need for such assistance in the plan.

1. Estimate, to the extent practicable, the number of persons in various subpopulations that are not homeless but may require housing or supportive services & 2. Identify the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but may or may not require supportive housing,

As more fully discussed in the Housing Needs section, certain persons or households face greater challenges than the general population in finding housing given their unique “special needs” and circumstances. Such circumstances range from fixed incomes to limited mobility to large households. Not all housing units in the general housing stock can meet the housing needs of persons or households with such special needs. Persons with special needs represent a significant part of the City’s population. The Table below identifies each of these groups, or subpopulations, and their respective representation within the City’s population. (DCP, 2007)

Special Needs Populations, City of Los AngelesSubpopulation Persons Households % of Citywide Total

Elderly (65 years +) 345,987 N/A 9%Persons with Disabilities (16-64 years)

395,014 N/A6%

Large Families (5 or more persons) N/A 185,276 14%

Families with Female Heads-of-Household N/A 195,123 15%

Persons living with HIV/AIDS

30,000***

Homeless* 48,103* N/A 4%Farmworkers** 2,039** N/A 0.0005%

Department of City Planning (2007) Source: 2005 ACS

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 177 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California* 2005 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count** 2000 Census; 2005 ACS estimate not available.***Los Angeles County Office of AIDS Programs & Policy (OAPP)

The 2005 American Community Survey revealed a significant number of disabled persons in Los Angeles who are at or below the poverty level, with the largest number being women in the 16-64 year age range (34,960 of 93,957 disabled reported, or 37.2%).

City of Los Angeles - Disability Status, 2005 American Community Survey

5,95229,111

6,054 3,812

34,96014,06811,571

92,692

46,604

7,911

96,643

74,88287,579

169,096

7,840 81,106

213,374

14,697

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Male 5-15 Male 16-64 Male 65 and Over Female 5-15 Female 16-64 Female 65 andOver

Status

Num

ber o

f Per

sons

No Disabled - Income below povertylevel

Disabled - Income At or Above PovertyLevel

Disabled - Income below poverty level

Status Male 5-15 Male 16-64 Male 65 and Over

Female 5-15

Female 16-64

Female 65 and Over

Total

Disabled - Income below poverty level

5,952 29,111 6,054 3,812 34,960 14,068 93,957

Disabled - Income At or Above Poverty Level

11,571 92,692 46,604 7,911 96,643 74,882 330,303

No Disabled - Income below poverty level

87,579 169,096 7,840 81,106 213,374 14,697 573,692

No Disabled - Income At or Above Poverty Level

202,020 964,412 81,710 199,089 887,581 100,132 2,434,944

TOTAL 307,122 1,255,311 142,208 291,918 1,232,558 203,779 3,432,896

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 178 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaDepartment of City Planning (2007)

Even though it is difficult to estimate the unmet housing needs of persons or households with special needs, since CHAS data is not available for this category, it is reasonable to assume that, given the statistics shown in the two charts above, there are hundreds of thousands of individuals, and families, in Los Angeles who require accessible, affordable housing and do not have it. This assessment is supported by the fact that the City of Los Angeles, as a whole, has a combined total of slightly more than 100,000 affordable rental units and Section 8 vouchers, nearly all of which are occupied or in use, respectively.

3. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs.

Because the City of Los Angeles has so many low-income residents with different types of serious unmet housing and service needs, we choose to fund a variety of programs to address those needs, knowing that the demand for services and housing is much greater than the supply. The annual budget allocations represent that balance.

4. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs.

The main obstacle to meeting underserved needs is the lack of sufficient funds to provide supportive housing. Other barriers in Los Angeles are the high cost of land, and the “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) opposition of many neighborhoods to affordable housing, particularly for persons with special needs.

5. To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing.

There is a severe shortage of permanent supportive housing in the City of Los Angeles, which is why the Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP), described elsewhere in this document, was initiated in 2006. As described more fully in the Homeless Strategic Plan part of this document, there has been a focus for the past several years on ‘discharge planning’, working with local institutions to ensure patients are not discharged with no place to go, resulting in homelessness. In 2005, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a policy of “zero tolerance” for discharging individuals from any County institution or facility or any County-sponsored program to homelessness:

In 2006, the relevant County departments worked collectively to develop these policies. In some instances, such as foster care, additional State standards apply.

Los Angeles County public health care inpatient facilities have implemented a policy requiring that all persons exiting health care facilities receive assistance finding appropriate housing opportunities and needed supportive services. Discharges are facilitated by social workers who evaluate each patient that reports being homeless to determine if there are discharge arrangements that can be made with family, friends, or other support systems

In 2006 the County Department of Mental Health (DMH) finalized and implemented discharge planning procedures for acute care hospitals, State mental hospitals and

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 179 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, CaliforniaInstitutions for Mental Disease (IMDs) that are designed to ensure that patients are not discharged to homelessness.

The Los Angeles County Jail, operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

Department, has both policy and an extensive service component in place to prevent inmates being released into homelessness.

6. If the jurisdiction plans to use HOME or other tenant based rental assistance to assist one or more of these subpopulations, it must justify the need for such assistance in the plan.

As in the past several years, HOME funds are again proposed to supplement the HOPWA Tenant-Based Rental Assistance program, to be administered by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) for residents seeking housing within the City. In prior years up to $2 million in HOME was budgeted for this purpose; less is being requested for the 34th Program Year. The need for rental assistance is great among low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS, but the program relies on rental property owners willing to participate in the program, which is difficult given the current high market rents.

Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA)

1. The Plan must include a description of the activities to be undertaken with its HOPWA Program funds to address priority unmet housing needs for the eligible population. Activities will assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, such as efforts to prevent low-income individuals and families from becoming homeless and may address the housing needs of persons who are homeless in order to help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. The plan would identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs and summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing how funds made available will be used to address identified needs.

2. The Plan must establish annual HOPWA output goals for the planned number of households to be assisted during the year in: (1) short-term rent, mortgage and utility payments to avoid homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3) in housing facilities, such as community residences and SRO dwellings, where funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities. The plan can also describe the special features or needs being addressed, such as support for persons who are homeless or chronically homeless. These outputs are to be used in connection with an assessment of client outcomes for achieving housing stability, reduced risks of homelessness and improved access to care.

1. For housing facility projects being developed, a target date for the completion of each development activity must be included and information on the continued use of these units for the eligible population based on their stewardship requirements (e.g. within the ten-year use periods for projects involving acquisition, new construction or substantial rehabilitation).

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 180 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

2. The Plan includes an explanation of how the funds will be allocated including a description of the geographic area in which assistance will be directed and the rationale for these geographic allocations and priorities. Include the name of each project sponsor, the zip code for the primary area(s) of planned activities, amounts committed to that sponsor, and whether the sponsor is a faith-based and/or grassroots organization.

3. The Plan describes the role of the lead jurisdiction in the eligible metropolitan statistical area (EMSA), involving (a) consultation to develop a metropolitan-wide strategy for addressing the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families living throughout the EMSA with the other jurisdictions within the EMSA; (b) the standards and procedures to be used to monitor HOPWA Program activities in order to ensure compliance by project sponsors of the requirements of the program.

4. The Plan includes the certifications relevant to the HOPWA Program.

1. (a) A description of the activities to be undertaken with its HOPWA Program funds to address priority unmet housing needs for the eligible population.

The Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) utilizes HOPWA Program funds to contract with thirty (30) community based non-profit organizations throughout the County of Los Angeles to provide housing-related supportive services and rental assistance programs for the eligible, low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH/A). The LAHD funds various supportive service programs for PLWH/A that may be living in permanent housing, homeless or at-risk of homelessness. Rental assistance programs are crucial to enabling PLWH/A to maintain their housing. Many participants live on fixed incomes such as disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), while the cost of living throughout Los Angeles County has increased substantially with the recent housing boom.

Persons who are not homeless are assisted by a HOPWA program called Supportive Services in Permanent Housing. Supportive services are critical for PLWH/A to maintain housing, connect to and maintain care, increase financial independence, obtain and retain employment, access health insurance and other benefits, and enhance their quality of life. HOPWA funds are utilized for supportive service workers to assist and follow-up with PLWH/A already living in permanent housing. For PLWH/A with co-occurring disorders, such as mental illness or substance abuse, specialized services responsive to the unique needs of these disorders are required in order for clients to maintain their housing successfully.

2008-2013 Five-Year Consolidated Plan181

City of Los Angeles, California

These barriers further compromise the ability of PLWH/A to access primary medical care, adhere to medication schedules, and suppress risk behaviors that can exacerbate their weakened immune systems and forestall the onset of AIDS.

HOPWA funds are also utilized for a category called Other Supportive Services that enhance the quality of independent living and assist PLWH/A and their families access and retain appropriate and affordable housing. Other Supportive Services are considered ancillary services that are not necessarily provided in a particular housing type or connected to a specific HIV/AIDS housing program. These services include food programs that are designed to educate HIV/AIDS clients about their nutritional needs and encourage proper nutrition through meal provision to foster healthful living and improve clients’ quality of life. Legal or housing advocacy services are critical forms of support for PLWH/A to obtain and maintain appropriate housing. HOPWA clients, especially due to their income levels, are often in need of legal assistance or housing advocacy services to access or retain housing, employment, medical care, health insurance, and other public benefits.

The Short Term Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRMU) Assistance grant is an effective rental assistance program that prevents homelessness among PLWH/A that are already stabilized and housed. Since PLWH/A are frequently facing eviction, foreclosure, or termination of utilities due to nonpayment of these expenses, HOPWA funding is available to provide emergency financial assistance with rent, mortgage, and utility payments to prevent that tenant, mortgagor, or utility customer from becoming homeless. STRMU assistance is not intended to provide continuous or perpetual assistance. Other types of HOPWA assistance, such as long-term rental assistance, should be employed when client assessments indicate that little or no improvement of the “conditions” that cause this financial burden are likely during the time-limited period of STRMU assistance. Assistance may not be provided for costs accruing over a period of more than 21-weeks in any 52-week period. Currently, an individual may access STRMU assistance of up to $600 per request; a family unit may access up to $900 per request. Pursuant Federal Guidelines, clients may receive up to 21 weeks of assistance in any 52-week period, which may or may not be consecutive. Currently, the maximum amounts of assistance cannot exceed $2,400 per individual or $3,600 per family unit.

Prior to the receipt of STRMU assistance, the individual or family will receive a housing needs assessment by a housing case manager to determine if the level of financial assistance to be provided will be adequate to allow this individual or family to remain in their own dwelling. All clients wishing to access this program must apply through referral agencies and utilize a case manager or housing case manager to complete the required paperwork for obtaining STRMU assistance grants.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 182 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Housing Case Management is a housing-related supportive service program designed for low-income, eligible PLWH/A that may homeless, at-risk of homelessness or living in permanent housing. LAHD funds community based non-profit organizations to provide housing case management services to assist PLWH/A in locating, acquiring, financing, and maintaining affordable and appropriate housing. Housing case managers must be able to provide the following: intake and assessment, formulating housing plans, building housing resource lists, making referrals to appropriate housing within the continuum of care, assisting with the housing search process, assisting clients in applying for housing assistance (e.g., emergency vouchers, STAP, Section 8, etc.), assisting clients in moving into housing, educating clients about tenant rights and responsibilities, and acting as an ongoing liaison between clients and property owners and case managers.

Due to the HOPWA mission of providing stable housing, housing case management differs from case management provided under programs which focus more exclusively on the provision of supportive and other services rather than housing. Housing case management differs significantly from other forms of case management in that it focuses primarily on the activities and concerns associated with assisting low-income people, often those who are homeless or living with disabilities, obtain and maintain affordable, decent, safe housing. Housing Case Managers are trained to be intimately familiar with the housing continuum of care in Los Angeles County. They are able to think creatively, when necessary and depending upon client needs, they can assist PLWH/A to access appropriate housing along any point within the continuum. Housing Case Managers understand that it is imperative that clients graduating from short-term housing programs (i.e., emergency shelter, licensed residential, and transitional housing) are assisted in securing permanent housing immediately upon program exit.

1 (b.) Address the housing needs of persons who are homeless in order to help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living.

The County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services Office of AIDS Programs and Policy estimates that 7,571 homeless persons are living with HIV/AIDS, including 2,911 persons living with AIDS. Approximately 14% of all PLWH/A are homeless. For many of them, immediate placement into permanent housing alone is often not effective in addressing the long term needs and issues these clients may have. The process of providing stable housing to homeless PLWH/A and their families begins with providing housing in emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities that also offer supportive services to clients. HOPWA funding is available for these purposes.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 183 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Emergency shelter and transitional housing programs are expected to work individually with PLWH/A in stabilizing them in their transition to affordable permanent housing. Stabilization activities should address a client’s physical, mental, and emotional needs. Emergency shelters meet a client’s most immediate needs and provide free stays of up to 30 days. Transitional housing assists PLWH/A in becoming self-sufficient and locating, acquiring, financing, and maintaining permanent housing and provide stays of up to 24 months.

Supportive services provided at these facilities include but are not limited to the following: needs assessments, crisis counseling, food and nutritional counseling, individual and group counseling, self-esteem classes, substance abuse counseling and treatment, benefits counseling and advocacy, individual case planning, budget counseling, medication management, money management, representative payee, transportation, recreational and social activities.

Emergency Housing and Meal Vouchers is another program specifically offered to homeless PLWH/A that LAHD allocates HOPWA funding for. A non-profit organization was selected to serve as a Central Coordinating Agency (CCA) for the coordination and distribution of emergency housing and meal vouchers to PLWH/A and their families who are experiencing homelessness or that were at-risk of homelessness and who are referred by a participating referral agency. The CCA is required to contract with hotels, motels, and restaurants throughout the County of Los Angeles to provide emergency housing and meals to PLWH/A and their families for up to a 30-day period. The Emergency Housing and Meal Voucher program is not an appropriate housing alternative for clients graduating from emergency shelter, transitional housing, or substance abuse treatment programs. The purpose of this program is to temporary house and feed homeless PLWH/A while these clients work with a housing case manager to develop a individual housing plan to seek more stable housing such as transitional housing or subsidized rental housing.

1 (c) The plan would identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs and summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing how funds made available will be used to address identified needs.

In addition to the main obstacles, which are a shortage of affordable housing in Los Angeles, County, and insufficient funds to increase the supply, there are a number of other obstacles to meeting the needs of PLWH/A and their families. Most clients live on a fixed income and frequently face eviction, foreclosure, or termination of utilities due to nonpayment of these expenses. HOPWA funds are used for the STRMU program to provide emergency financial

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 184 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

assistance with rent, mortgage, and utility payments to prevent that tenant, mortgagor, or utility customer from becoming homeless. Emergency financial assistance is provided to PLWH/A who have experienced a financial hardship for any one of the following reasons: reduction or stoppage of public benefits, job loss, medical expenses that are not covered through Medi-Cal or other insurance.

Case Managers work with clients to offer solutions by completing individual budget plans, money management training or assisting clients enrolled in utility discount programs offered to low-income persons. Other types of HOPWA assistance, such as Tenant Based Rental Assistance, Section 8 or Shelter Plus Care are employed when client assessments indicate little or no improvement of the conditions that caused the financial burden.

Another barrier to permanent housing for PLWH/A is the lack of personal savings due to their low, fixed incomes. These clients often require financial assistance when moving into permanent, subsidized or non-subsidized housing. The LAHD uses HOPWA funds to provide Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) grants to pay for costs of: (1) security deposits (not to exceed the equivalent of two months rent for the unit); and (2) utility deposits, including electric, gas, water, and trash (telephone and cable are not eligible expenses). Individuals receiving PHP grants for a security deposit must return the security deposit, less cleaning costs, and utility deposits upon leaving the assisted unit.

The inability of low-income PLWH/A to access appropriate and affordable housing can lead to unstable housing or homelessness, and ultimately poor health outcomes. The lack of knowledge of available housing resources and how to access them remains a significant barrier for PLWH/A. Combined with other barriers, such as poor credit and/or rental history, previous involvement with the criminal justice system, and complicated applications for permanent housing, PLWH/A require housing case management services to improve their ability to locate, acquire, finance, and maintain affordable and appropriate housing. The LAHD allocates HOPWA funds for this purpose.

Lastly, a great impediment for PLWH/A to maintain their permanent housing is the lack of linkages to supportive services, if not provided in connection with their housing. LAHD uses HOPWA monies to fund supportive services for PLWH/A to maintain housing, connect to and maintain care, increase financial independence, obtain and retain employment, access health insurance and other benefits, and enhance quality of life. Co-occurring disorders, such as mental illness or substance abuse are great barriers for PLWH/A. Specialized services that are responsive to the unique needs of these disorders are required in order for them to maintain their housing successfully. These barriers further compromise the ability of PLWH/A to access primary medical care, adhere to medication

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 185 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

schedules, and suppress risk behaviors that can exacerbate their weakened immune systems and forestall the onset of AIDS.

According to AIDS Housing of Washington, HIV prevalence rates are especially high among persons with mental illness (ranging from 4% to 18%) and substance abuse issues (ranging from 24% to 40%). The impact these barriers have upon PLWH/A is further compounded when mental health services and substance abuse treatment services systems operate separately, and HIV/AIDS housing providers lack the expertise necessary to coordinate services and funding for PLWH/A with both conditions.

The LAHD utilizes HOPWA funds for supportive services in permanent housing that assist PLWH/A and their families in adjusting to their new living arrangements, successfully maintaining independent living, and coordinating their overall housing and services needs. Eligible supportive services include; service coordination, mental health counseling and treatment, and substance abuse counseling and treatment that are provided at the permanent housing site.

2 (a)The plan must establish annual HOPWA output goals for the planned number of households to be assisted during the year in: (1) short-term rent, mortgage and utility payments to avoid homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3) in housing facilities, such as community residences and SRO dwellings, where funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities.

Programs2008-2009

Client GoalsShort Term Rent, Mortgage & Utility     1,200Scattered Site Master Leasing     27Tenant Based Rental Assistance     225Project Based Rental Assistance     31Lease, Operating & Supportive Services in     683Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing      

Total 2,166

(b.) The plan can also describe the special features or needs being addressed, such as support for persons who are homeless or chronically homeless. These outputs are to be used in connection with an assessment of client outcomes for achieving housing stability, reduced risks of homelessness and improved access to care.

The LAHD issued the January 2007 Request For Proposal (RFP) for HOPWA funding for non-profit community based organizations (CBOs) to submit proposals with innovative approaches to address

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 186 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

the issue of homeless, at-risk homeless and chronically homeless PLWH/A throughout Los Angeles County under the Lease, Operating and Supportive Services in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing component. The LAHD understands that the process of providing stable housing to homeless PLWH/A and their families begins with providing housing in emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities that offer supportive services to clients. Non-profit providers proposed innovative approaches that work individually with PLWH/A in stabilizing them in their transition to affordable permanent housing. Experienced and trained staff members perform stabilization activities that address a client’s physical, mental, and emotional needs.

The services provided by the CBOs are also measured in outcome assessments for housing stability that improve access to care, reduce the risk of further homelessness and increase the potential of a client of obtaining an income producing job. Innovative approaches submitted by the CBOs first addressed the issue of stabilizing the housing needs of homeless clients with Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing and providing the necessary supportive services. These services include: case management, psychosocial support and counseling, support groups, health care or access to health care, mental health counseling and treatment, assistance in locating and accessing permanent and affordable housing, child care and other children’s services, attendant care, and follow-up services.

3. Description of HOPWA funds used for housing developments

As mentioned above, the LAHD has initiated the Permanent Supportive Housing Program to increase the stock of affordable, supportive housing for homeless residents, including those living with HIV/AIDS, in collaboration with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and the Department of Water and Power. To preserve HOPWA funds for needed services, the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and HOME program dollars are used to finance the development of permanent housing dedicated to persons living with HIV/AIDS -- a key goal of the national HOPWA program.

Through a competitive 2007 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process for the Permanent Supportive Housing Program (PSHP), LAHD allocated HOPWA capital development funds as part of the total financing for the development of the James M. Wood Apartments, to be built on a vacant lot in the City’s Skid Row neighborhood. The non-profit developer, SRO Housing Corporation, has secured financing and started construction. Construction completion is expected in early 2009, with full occupancy by April 2009.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 187 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

The James M. Wood Apartments is intended for homeless residents with a primary diagnosable mental illness, who may have additional diagnoses, including substance addiction, HIV/AIDS or other physical disabilities. SRO Housing Corporation will partner with the Downtown Mental Health Center (DMHC) to conduct outreach activities and initial evaluations of all prospective residents before a referral to the housing is provided. Supportive services to be offered to residents will include case management, medical assistance, benefits counseling and advocacy, nutritional information, transportation assistance, socialization and recreational activities, peer support and self-help groups, referrals for medical and legal assistance, life-skills training, money management, employment and housing assistance, and other services for substance abuse disorders.

Pursuant to the loan agreement between the LAHD and SRO Housing Corporation; below is the schedule of performance for the James M. Wood Apartments and a target date of each individual activity to be completed

(a.) Target date for the completion of each development activity must be included

Development Activity DateLeverage Funding Source Award 4/2007Submit Plans & Specifications to LAHD 9/2007Submit Construction Package to LAHD 9/2007Site Acquisition 9/2006Notice to Proceed (LAHD) 11/2007Commencement of Construction 11/200750% Construction Completion 7/2008Completion of Construction (TC of O/C of O) 2/200990% Stabilized Occupancy 4/2009(b.) Information on the continued use of these units of the eligible

population based on their stewardship requirements

SRO Housing Corporation shall execute a regulatory agreement, which will be recorded against the property upon execution of the Loan agreement. This Agreement shall include the number and type of units targeted to tenants at specific income levels. Tenants shall be households whose households are at or below the “60% of Area Median Income Limit” as defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The covenant will encumber the property for fifty-five (55) years, regardless of the date upon which the Lender Loan is fully repaid.

4. (a) The Plan includes an explanation of how the funds will be allocated including a description of the geographic area in which assistance will be directed and the rationale for these geographic allocations and priorities.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 188 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

The LAHD administers the formula HOPWA grant for the Los Angeles-Long Beach Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area (EMSA). According to the County of Los Angeles data published in January 2007 at www.lacounty.info/statistical_information.htm, Los Angeles County covers an area of more than 4,000 square miles, with a population of 10,331,939 residents, of whom nearly 18% live below the poverty line.

Approximately 27% of California’s residents live in the County. There are 88 cities within the County, as well as unincorporated areas. The City of Los Angeles is the largest, most populous city in the County with a population of 4,018,080. According to the HIV/AIDS Semi-Annual Surveillance Summary, published July 2006 by the County of Los Angeles HIV Epidemiology Program for case cases reported as of June 30, 2006; there are a total of 51,011 cumulative cases of persons living with AIDS.

Service Planning Area (SPA) Communities

Cumulative Number of Cases Percentage

Antelope Valley- SPA 1 Lancaster and Palmdale 479 1%

San Fernando - SPA 2East Valley, Glendale, San Fernando and West Valley 7,119 14%

San Gabriel - SPA 3

Alhambra, El Monte, Foothill, Pasadena and Pomona 3,702 7%

Metro - SPA 4Central, Hollywood-Wilshire and Northeast 19,423 38%

West - SPA 5 Santa Monica 2,884 6%

South - SPA 6Compton, South, Southeast and Southwest 4,961 10%

East - SPA 7

Bellflower, East Los Angeles, San Antonio and Whittier 2,951 6%

South Bay - SPA 8Harbor, Inglewood, Long Beach and Torrance 8,023 16%

Unknown Geo Area   1,469 2%Total 51,011 100%

In Los Angeles County, agencies experienced with serving the housing needs of eligible, low-income PLWH/A are generally located in communities with the highest concentrations of persons living with HIV/AIDS, according to the epidemiological data listed above. For example, given the high concentration of homeless PLWH/A in the downtown Skid Row area, there are several emergency shelter and transitional housing providers (e.g. LAMP Community, JWCH, SRO Housing Corporation, Skid Row Housing Trust) funded with HOPWA dollars, in that same area. Service Planning Area (SPA) 4 has the highest concentration of PLWH/A in the entire County,

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 189 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

encompassing the communities of Central LA, Hollywood-Wilshire and Northeast LA. Fifteen of the 30 total HOPWA-funded agencies are dedicated to serving this geographic area.

Project Sponsor/

Primary Service or Site

Information: Project Zip

Code(s)2007/2008

Funded Amount

Faith-based Organization/ Grassroots/

NoSubcontractor NameAid For AIDS 90046 $3,169,635.00 NoAIDS Project Los Angeles 90005 $596,641.00 NoAIDS Service Center 91105 $257,002.00 NoAltaMed Health Services Corp. 90040 $30,462.00 NoBienestar Human Services 90022 $164,996.00 NoCatalyst Foundation For AIDS Awareness And Care 93534 $54,250.00 NoCommon Ground-The Westside HIV Community Center 90405 $48,586.00 NoCovenant House California 90027 $47,519.00 Faith-basedFoothill AIDS Project 91711 $31,178.00 NoFriends Research Institute, Inc 90064 $145,643.00 NoHIV & AIDS Legal Services Alliance, Inc. 90010 $158,851.00 NoHollywood Community Health Care 90028 $178,795.00 NoHomeless Health Care Los Angeles 90057 $99,000.00 NoHousing Authority of the City of Long Beach 90802 $525,000.00 NoHousing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 90057 $1,144,074.00 NoHousing Authority of the County of Los Angeles 91755 $1,271,452.00 NoJoint Efforts, Inc. 90731 $105,258.00 NoJWCH Institute, Inc. 90026 $68,274.00 NoLAMP Community 90013 $180,434.00 NoLos Angeles Family Housing Corp 91605 $84,219.00 NoMinority AIDS Project 90016 $40,629.00 NoNew Image Emergency Shelter 90802 $1,530,136.00 NoPalms Residential Care Facility 90003 $266,243.00 NoPasadena Community Development Commission 91105 $49,000.00 NoPeople Assisting The Homeless 90004 $78,115.00 NoPets Are Wonderful Support 90028 $258,735.00 NoProject Angel Food 90038 $81,463.00 NoProject New Hope 90026 $340,296.75 NoSerra Project 91106 $489,412.00 NoShelter Partnership, Inc. 90014 $30,000.00 NoSingle Room Occupancy Housing Corp 90013 $337,862.00 NoSkid Row Housing Trust 90021 $31,320.00 NoSouthern California Alcohol and Drug Programs, Inc 90241 $134,447.00 NoSubstance Abuse Foundation of Long Beach, Inc. 90804 $132,262.00 NoTarzana Treatment Centers 91356 $288,351.00 NoThompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates 90503 $90,000.00 NoWest Hollywood Community Housing Corp 90046 $61,844.00 No

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 190 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

(b) Include the name of each project sponsor, the zip code for the primary area(s) of planned activities in order to ensure compliance with program requirements.

5. (a.) The Plan describes the role of the lead jurisdiction in the eligible metropolitan statistical area (EMSA), involving (a) consultation to develop a metropolitan-wide strategy for addressing the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families living throughout the EMSA with the other jurisdictions with in the EMSA;

The LAHD continues to strive for improvements in the delivery of the HOPWA Program by consistently convening the monthly Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) meetings. LACHAC is the advisory board that assists the HOPWA Program to carry out its goals. LACHAC advises the HOPWA Program on matters related to the planning and policy, administration of the HOPWA grant, coordination with other HIV/AIDS programs, and advocating for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.

The advisory board consists of, at a minimum, five persons living with HIV/AIDS, representatives of Community Based Organizations (CBOs), and members of the general public. Membership includes those with expertise in emergency shelter and transitional housing, mental health, children’s services, and substance abuse. Representatives from three different housing authorities, the LA Commission on HIV, the Los Angeles City AIDS Coordinator and other government agencies participate, as well as apartment owner associations.

Since the spring of 2006, the HOPWA Program has participated in the Los Angeles County HIV Collaborative. This subcommittee was formed by the Los Angeles County Special Needs Housing Alliance that set aside funding for housing development for three specific special needs populations including persons living with HIV/AIDS, chronically homeless persons and foster care emancipated youth. The County of Los Angeles has established a Homeless Prevention Initiative with approximately $80 million dollars to increase the fight against homelessness and address the core problems that lead individuals to homelessness.

At this subcommittee, the LAHD has been working with various representatives from the Los Angeles County departments including, but not limited to the following; Office of AIDS Programs and Policy (OAPP), Los Angeles County Health Department, Department of Mental Health, Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) and the Los Angeles County Commission on HIV to strategize methods and priorities to better collaborate and maximize government grant funding. These organizations utilize various government funding sources including

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 191 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Ryan White Care Act, Emergency Shelter Grant, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).

LAHD will continue to further encourage community participation and discussion as it did in June 2006, when it proposed a LACHAC subcommittee to evaluate the HOPWA delivery system. From August through October, 2006, six meetings were held in the community to facilitate public participation. The subcommittee’s recommendations were presented at the October 25, 2006 LACHAC meeting and were considered for incorporation for the Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Other subcommittee goals and discussion included: assisting AIDS service organizations to provide services that empower their clients towards self-sufficiency, clarifying the highest priority client needs for each specific HOPWA-funded program, and identifying the underserved populations and geographic areas for each of the programs. All of the information obtained during these meetings was considered for inclusion in the 2007 HOPWA Request for Proposals (RFP), and ideas were solicited from community based non-profit organizations to improve the delivery of services to clients.

5. (b.) The standards and procedures to be used to monitor HOPWA Program activities in order to ensure compliance by project sponsors of the requirements of the program.

Successful monitoring of each project is facilitated by off-site monitoring visits, remote monitoring activities, participation of project sponsor staff at the monthly oversight case management oversight and LACHAC meetings and constant communication between Contract and HOPWA staff. In addition to the three contract monitors, the HOPWA Coordinator serves in a supervisory role and serves as the point of contact for the community regarding affordable housing programs serving those living with HIV/AIDS.

The LAHD also conducts Remote Monitoring of all HOPWA-funded contracted agencies. Every month, all HOPWA-funded contractors are required to submit monthly client demographic reports along with their invoices for personnel, program, operations and administrative costs. The client demographic reports capture all of the HUD-required information mandated either through the CAPER or the Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS) including but not limited to the following; beneficiary information (both clients with HIV/AIDS and other persons in the family unit), gender and age, race/ethnicity, area of the county clients reside, reasons for leaving, mode of transmission, outcomes and narrative.

Another remote monitoring tool used by LAHD is the quarterly assessment, every three (3) months, a letter is sent to all HOPWA contracted agencies assessing their performance in regards to expenditure rate and client service amounts. Budget amounts and

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 192 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

client service goals are stipulated in each individual agency’s contract and also in the consolidated plan. The minimum threshold for both of the performance measures is ninety (90) percent and is closely monitored at the conclusion of each twelve (12) month program year. Agencies that do not meet the threshold are required to submit a letter of corrective action to LAHD detailing reasons why they could not meet accomplish their goals and actions to be taken to meet the 90% threshold by the end of the program year.

The LAHD has initiated Off-Site Monitoring activities at all of the project sponsors that includes a comprehensive assessment of client files to ensure all files have an HIV/AIDS diagnosis form and income verification, ensuring at a minimum that all client income is at or below the 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Agencies are also monitored to ensure that clients do not have to pay for services (except for rent) and funds are not used for health services. A project sponsor’s Policy and Procedures manual is also monitored examining such topics as admissions requirements, waiting list procedures, client confidentiality, termination of service, etc. The LAHD contracts with a technical service provider to provide on-site financial monitoring to ensure agencies accounting and invoicing procedures are accurate and in accord with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 and those of the LAHD.

6. The plan includes the certifications relevant to the HOPWA Program.

Please see attached.Specific HOPWA Objectives

1. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan.

The Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) has implemented a model based on strategic planning studies and the needs of the community. The LAHD continues to strive for improvements in the delivery of the HOPWA Program by consistently convening the monthly Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) meetings. LACHAC is the advisory board that assists the HOPWA Program to carry out its goals, advises the LAHD on matters related to the planning, policy and administration of the HOPWA grant, coordination with other HIV/AIDS programs, and advocating for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.

The Strategic Plan for Providing HIV/AIDS Housing with Supportive Services in Los Angeles County, released in the fall of 2003 under the guidance of the Los Angeles HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) Strategic Planning Task Force, represented the

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 193 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

culmination of a two-year community planning process to better inform the distribution of housing, supportive services, and funding resources for persons living with HIV/AIDS in Los Angeles County.

Historically, the LAHD has been able to use Federal, State, and local public and private sources in conjunction to develop and increase the number of affordable housing units for PLWH/A. This was a categorized as a major objective to increasing the housing options for PLWH/A in the Strategic Plan.

One example of a recent development utilizing layered funding from a number of sources is the Triangle Square Apartments (formerly known as Encore Hall), which was completed in March 2007. This 103-unit building was constructed with $1.2 million of HOPWA funds as well as funding from the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, Proposition 46-funded California Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) and the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (AHP). The $1.2 million of HOPWA funds only provided enough funding for six units at an average cost of $200,000 per unit. However through additional leveraging of gap funding from the LAHD, thirty-five (35) of the total 103 units will be set aside for special needs seniors, 18 for seniors living with HIV/AIDS and 17 for very low-income seniors.

The LAHD has long strived to ensure that Supportive Services are provided in conjunction with housing to improve the quality of life for HOPWA-eligible clients. Supportive Services are widely accepted as integral for PLWH/A to obtain and maintain housing. They can ameliorate poverty, increase employment, facilitate medical care, provide assistance accessing public benefits and generally improve one’s quality of life. The LAHD used HOPWA monies during program year 2006/2007 to fund the following supportive service categories; Emergency Housing and Meal Vouchers, Housing Information Services Clearinghouse, Lease, Operating and Supportive Services in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing, Housing Case Management, Legal Services, Food Banks and the delivery of prepared meals.

Often, HOPWA-eligible clients have prior legal and credit/financial issues and barriers that can prevent them from obtaining housing. Clients may also face HIV/AIDS and/or sexual orientation discrimination during their progression along the continuum of housing. Other valuable supportive services include food banks and the delivery of prepared meals to HOPWA clients. Clients living a limited fixed income are able to use their financial resources for rent and utility costs rather than on groceries. Permanent Housing Placement Grants provide an essential financial support service to eligible clients with security and utility deposits, enabling them to move into the affordable housing.

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 194 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

Housing Case Management is crucial first link for clients to all HOPWA services. All clients receive an intake assessment of their housing needs and are then evaluated by the housing case managers in regards to which programs are most appropriate to maintain or acquire housing. Housing case managers often assist clients in the completion of lengthy involved forms for TBRA, STRMU, Housing Choice Voucher, Project Based Section 8, Scattered Site Master Leasing or any other supportive service program.

The LAHD will continue to allocate funds for rental assistance programs that are very effective in assisting low-income PLWH/A and their families retain their housing while often living on a fixed income. The objective of the STRMU is to provide short-term rent, mortgage, and utility (STRMU) assistance to persons (and their families) who are HIV symptomatic, diagnosed with AIDS, or infected with HIV and have an unrelated disability, in order to prevent homelessness. STRMU Grants can be used for the payment of rent/mortgage and utilities. Prior to the receipt of a STRMU grant, the individual or family will receive a housing needs assessment to determine if the level of assistance to be provided will be adequate to allow the individual or family to remain in their own dwelling or maintain a new dwelling.

Another major rental assistance program administered by LAHD is the Scattered-site Master Leasing that is contracted out to two community based organizations (project sponsors). Through this program, permanent housing is made available and affordable by a non-profit organization to PLWH/A’s and their families. PLWH/A’s and their families (subtenants) rent the units from the project sponsors (master tenant) that has master leases over the scattered-site properties with landlords. Rent for master leased units must not exceed 130 percent of the HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR). Rent for master leased units also must be reasonable to other unassisted units in the neighborhood and reasonable to those being charged by the owner for comparable unassisted units. The Project Sponsors are responsible for determining appropriate subtenant rent amounts, associated rental subsidy levels, and ensuring Housing Quality Standards (HQS) for master leased units.

Another rental assistance program that LAHD is committed to administer with HOPWA funds is the Project Based Rental Assistance (PBRA). The Project Sponsor is the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA). Two Projects are eligible for rental subsidies under the Project Based Rental Assistance Program: Harper Community Apartments and Argyle Court. HACLA acts as a pass through agency for two Project Operators, Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC) and West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (WHCHC). Project Operators are responsible for providing or ensuring the provision of supportive services on-site or off-site to Program participants. The rental

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 195 CPMP v. 2.0

City of Los Angeles, California

assistance is tied to the actual apartment building or apartment unit rather than the tenant, that can rent anywhere in the fair market.

Lastly, LAHD utilizes a substantial amount of HOPWA funds for the Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. The four project sponsors are the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, the Pasadena Community Development Commission and the Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach.

HOPWA funds provide up to twelve months of tenant based rental assistance to very-low income households of persons with HIV/AIDS or related diseases. The Program operates in the same way as the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program but also provides access to supportive services. Eligible families seek housing in the private sector; the unit they select must pass an inspection to ensure that the unit is habitable. Like Section 8 assistance, the client’s portion of the rent is generally 30 percent of the adjusted monthly income of the entire household. At the end of the HOPWA funded period, the Project Sponsor provides continued assistance to Program participants through their Section 8 Housing Program (i.e. rollover) if the household continues to meet the eligibility requirements for on-going rental assistance.

END OF DOCUMENT

2008-2013 Consolidated Plan 196 CPMP v. 2.0