transmittal - los angelesclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-0560_rpt_cdd_08-27-09.pdf · a....

~ TRANSMITTALTo: Date: rSEP 042009

THE COUNCIL -'.

From: (THE MAYOR

.'

.'

TRANSMfITED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED.,

c11~ ,

C/'t~ L~ANTONIO R.. Vll..LARAIGQSA .

- Mayor -

.'

RICHARD L BENBOWGENERAL MANAGER

ITY OF Los ANGELECALIFORNIA

1200 WEST SEVENTH STREETLos ANGELES, CA 90017

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT

ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSAMAYOR

Council File: 09-0560Council Districts: AllContact Person & Phone:Manny Chavez, 744-9700

August27,2009

Honorable Antonio R. VillaraigosaMayor, City of Los AngelesRoom 303, City Hall

Attention: Pamela Finley, Legislative Coordinator

TRANSMITTAL: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SELECTION OF FAMILYSOURCEPROGRAM PROVIDERS BASED ON THE 2009 FAMILYSOURCE PROGRAMREQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND ACTIONS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT NEWPROGRAM OPERATIONS

ACTION REQUESTED

The General Manager of the Community Development Department (COD) respectfullyrequests that your office forward this transmittal to the City Council for review andapproval.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The General Manager of COD respectfully requests that the Mayor and City Council:

1. APPROVE the results of the 2009 FamilySource Centers Operators (FSC)Request for Proposals (RFP) process as indicated on Attachment A to thistransmittal, as determined by COD and supported by the Community ActionBoard.

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

2. APPROVE the results of the 2009 System Support - Program EvaluationRequest for Proposals as indicated on Attachment A to this transmittal, asdetermined by COD and supported by the Community Action Board.

3. APPROVE the results of the 2009 System Support - Technical AssistanceRequest for Proposals as indicated on Attachment A to this transmittal, asdetermined by COD and supported by the Community Action Board.

4. AUTHORIZE the General Manager COD, or designee to negotiate andexecute City Agreements with each of the 17 proposers selected to become

Mayor Villaraigosa Page 2 August 27, 2009

new contractors for the FamilySource Program (FSP), with funding not toexceed the amount stated on Attachment B for the six month period,October 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010, with the option to renew for twoadditional 12-month periods, subject to the initial or renewed certification of15 of the 17 recommended proposers as a Community Based DevelopmentOrganization (CBDO), availability of funds, and approval by City Attorney asto form and legality.

5. AUTHORIZE the General Manager COD, or designee, to establish a FSCOperator Replacement list to be in effect for three years commencingOctober 1, 2009, to include any FSC proposal receiving a score of 70 pointsor greater, but not recommended for funding as a result of the 2009 FSCRFP. INSTRUCT COD to report back to the City Council before theimplementation of any portion of said list.

6. AUTHORIZE the General Manager COD, or designee, to negotiate with FSClead agencies to execute financial sub-agreements with organizations thathave experience serving the Asian Pacific Islander (API) community - apopulation that has been historically under-represented and underserved asparticipants of COO's Human Services delivery system. Acknowledging theexistence of significant API communities in the South Valley, Lincoln Heightsand Hollywood, COD will target these areas for services.

7. AUTHORIZE the General Manager COD, or designee, to utilize UDAGMiscellaneous Revenue Funds for $400,000 to augment the COBG andCSBG grant sources.

8. AUTHORIZE the General Manager COD, or designee, to negotiate with QiuAccountancy Corporation, Simpson and Simpson, CPAs and Thompson,Cobb, Basilio and Associates, P.C. for audits and audit related services up to$100,000 each. Use of various grant sources were approved in previousMayor and Council actions.

9. AUTHORIZE the Controller to:

a. Expend $3,981,809 from Account F304 CBDO-HSOS within CommunityDevelopment Block Grant Fund 424.

b. Expend $760,895 from Account F303 Redesign HSDS within CommunityDevelopment Block Grant Fund 424.

c. Establish Account F301 FamilySource Program and appropriate$1,313,401 within Community Services Block Grant Fund 428.

d. Establish Account F401 FamilySource Program and appropriate$1,293,895 within Community Services Block Grant Fund 428

Mayor Villaraigosa Page 3 August27,2009

e. Expend $500,000 from Account F501 FamilySource Program withinCommunity Services Block Grant ARRA Fund 51H.

f. Establish Account F300 FamilySource program and appropriate $400,000within UDAG Miscellaneous Revenue Fund 356.

10. AUTHORIZE the General Manager CDD, or designee, to prepare anyController's instructions needed to implement actions approved by theCouncil and Mayor on matters presented in or deriving from this transmittal,and/or to make necessary technical adjustments, subject to the approval ofthe City Administrative Officer; and further, REQUEST that the Controllerimplement the instructions.

SUMMARY

Pursuant to prior Council action on May 8, 2009, C.F. No. 09-0560, the CommunityDevelopment Department employed a competitive proposal process to recommendselection and funding of service providers for the City's FamilySource Program (FSP).Recommendations to fund 16 FamilySource Center operators and one ProgramEvaluation contractor based on this proposal process are transmitted herein.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The recommendations contained herein do not impact the City's General Fund. TheFamilySource Program, operates on the Consolidated Plan Program Year (PY) basis(April 1-March 31) and is funded using a combination of Community Development BlockGrant (CDBG), Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Urban Development ActionGrant (UDAG), Miscellaneous Revenue, and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act(ARRA) CSBG funding.

BACKGROUND

In response to the need for more strategic delivery and monitoring of City programs andservices and to address rising unemployment and poverty rates, the COD isestablishing an integrated system for implementing the City's anti-poverty efforts andpolicy initiatives. The new FamilySource Program establishes an infrastructure fordelivering coordinated, outcome-driven services to the most vulnerable city residents,and positions the City to pursue other resources to augment existing funding. TheFamilySource Program will be comprised of 21 FamilySource Centers, five (5) of whichwere previously known as Youth and Family Centers (YFCs). These five (5)FamilySource Centers will be managed by City staff and are not subject to thisprocurement process.

FamilySource Center Operators

The new FamilySource Program will consist of a consortium of agencies operating oneor more of the City's 21 FamilySource Centers. These Centers will be located inidentified high-need areas of the City and will provide a continuum of core services


designed to assist low-income families become self sufficient by increasing familyincome and youth academic achievement. All FamilySource Centers will have universalaccess services available to all City residents. Additionally, case management serviceswill be available to low-income parents/guardians and their children ages 16 or underrequiring more comprehensive services. One partner designated by each group is toserve as the applicant (Lead) agency for the consortium, and ideally, all consortiummembers will be co-located at the same program facility or facilities in close proximity asjustified in the proposed program design. Annual funding for operators of FamilySourceCenters is proposed at $1 million subject to availability of funds and approval of theMayor and City Council.

System Support (Program Evaluation & Technical Assistance) Service Providers

Additional contractors will be retained to provide "system supports" for the FamilySourceProgram. System support services include: 1) conducting program evaluation and 2)providing technical assistance to increase the program's capacity to serve persons withdisabilities.

2008 FAMILYSOURCE PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Following authorization granted by the Mayor and City Council (C.F. 09-0560), theCOD's Human Services and Family Development Division released a Request forProposals for the new FamilySource Centers Operators and System Support (ProgramEvaluation & Technical Assistance) on May 27,2009. Proposals were due July 7,2009by 5:00 p.m.

Public Notice and Outreach

Advertisements were placed in 17 different publications to notify the general public ofthe RFP release. Notice of the release was also placed on COD's website and the City'sLos Angeles Business Assistance Virtual Network (LABAVN). COD provided technicalassistance to all prospective applicants by conducting Proposer Conferences on June 5,9, 10 and 11, 2009. The Proposer Conferences were held in Boyle Heights, Watts,Pacoima and Civic Center. COD also provided additional technical assistance toprospective applicants by posting answers on COD's website to over 200 questionsreceived during the proposer conferences and/or via email.

Proposal Review Process

The COD received 35 FSC proposals, two program evaluation proposals, and onetechnical assistance proposal by the July 7, 2009, 5:00 p.m. due date, with two FSCproposals received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline. After the proposal submission deadline,all proposals were screened and determined to have met the minimum eligibilityrequirements.


Proposal Rating Teams

All eligible FSC proposals were given to teams of raters to be reviewed, scored andranked within the FamilySource targeted area they proposed to serve. Seventeen (17)rating teams reviewed the 38 proposals. Each team consisted of three membersincluding COD staff members and outside raters. The outside raters were recruited fromthe following entities:

• Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority• United Way of Greater Los Angeles• California/Nevada Community Action Partnership• Office of Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer• City of Los Angeles Human Services Department• Emerging Markets, Inc. Bank on LA• City of Los Angeles Department of Aging• UCLA• Los Angeles Housing Department• Legacy LA• Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council• Los Angeles Unified School District• Valley Village• Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (retired)• Self-employed professional social worker• Two community volunteers

All proposal raters participated in an orientation that provided an overview of the FSPand the scoring criteria. Each proposal rater also signed a Conflict of Interest/Non-Disclosure Statement. After scoring proposals individually, each rater met with theother members of the rating team to discuss the proposals and the scores he or sheassigned to them. If the proposal score(s) assigned by each rater was more than 10points lower or higher than the scores from other team members, the team was askedto discuss the proposal further to achieve a consensus score, where possible.

Proposal Evaluation and Site Visits

Evaluation of the proposals was based on the evaluation factors shown below, includingthe number of co-located partners, leveraged resources, and site visit results. Site visitswere conducted by COD staff for all eligible proposers to review the readiness of theproposed FamilySource Center facility site in accordance with the facility guidelinesoutlined in the RFP. The scores for the 38 proposals reviewed along with COD stafffunding recommendations are provided on Attachment A. A proposer's score could notexceed the possible points shown for each of the four major factors listed below.


80-89%

70-79%

Demonstrated Ability• Experience in providing services comparable to those being solicited. 25

Consideration was given to those proposers whose consortium included partnerswith demonstrated experience as a funded service provider of the City's HumanServices Delivery System within the past two years;

• Performance against comparable agreements with other funding source;• Ex erience in mana in funds com arable or reater than those re uested.Program Design and Approach• Alignment with the City's program design vision;• Evidence that the consortium has a clear dectston-maklnq process; partners

understand their roles and responsibilities; and has a working relationship with keycommunity partners; 50

• Evidence that the proposed program service plan includes required core servicesand is appropriately designed and supported administratively to accomplish theprojected results and benefits of the program; and

• Readiness to im lement ro osed services within a limited timeframe.Cost Reasonableness 20• Costs that are reasonable, allowable, necessary, and competitive, as measured by

a review of the llne-Item budget, the project design, and its competitive standing ascom ared to all other ro osals.

Site Visit• All eligible proposers will be scheduled for a site visit in July 2009 to review the 5

readiness of the proposed FamilySource Center facility site in accordance with thefacilit uidelines outlined in Section F.1 Facilit Standards of the RFP document.

Proposals were required to meet a minimum score of 70 out of 100 points in order to beconsidered for funding as outlined in the table below.

The Proposer responded to aI/ questions, followed all theinstructions in the preparation of the Proposal Package;completed all of the forms and exhibits; and has provided athoroughly detailed approach and presentation of the materialrequested in the RFP to what appears to be an effective andefficient approach in establishing a FamilySource Center

ro ram or as a S stem Su ort rovider.Very Good The Proposer responded to most of the questions, followed

generally all of the instructions in the preparation of the ProposalPackage; completed most of the forms and exhibits; and hasprovided a detailed and generally effective and efficient approachin establishing a FamiJySource Center program or SystemSu ort evaluation s stem and customer satisfaction ro ram.

Good The Proposer responded to a significant number of questions,followed generally most of the instructions in the preparation ofthe Proposal Package with few exceptions; completed asignificant amount of the forms and exhibits; and has provided asomewhat detailed approach in establishing a FamilySourceCenter program with minor omissions and/or System evaluationand customer satisfaction ro ram.


Marginal 60- 69%The Proposer responded to some of the questions, followedgenerally some of the instructions in the preparation of theProposal Package with some than a few exceptions; completedsome of the forms and exhibits; and has provided some detail inthe approach to establishing a FamilySource Center programwith a significant number of omissions and/or System evaluationand customer satisfaction ro ram.

Poor 1 -59%The Proposer responded to very few of the proposal questions;generally did not follow the instructions in the preparation of theProposal Package almost without exception; did not complete ordid not submit most of the forms and exhibits; and has notprovided evidence of the capability of establishing aFamilySource Center program or System evaluation andcustomer satisfaction ro ram.

All FSC proposers were encouraged to qualify under the Community BasedDevelopment Organization (CBDO) regulations for Community Development BlockGrant funding in order to be eligible to compete for COBG funding. All proposers werenotified of this requirement in the RFP. Fifteen (15) of the 17 recommended proposersare currently certified or deemed certifiable as CBDOs. The funding sources for eachrecommended proposer are identified on Attachment B.

System Support - Program Evaluation and Technical Assistance RFPs

The selected Program Evaluation proposer will be required to develop an evaluationsystem and customer satisfaction survey of the proposed twenty-one FamilySourceCenter sites no later than April 1, 2010.

While the single Technical Assistance proposal was reviewed and scored, it did notadequately address the scope of work. The proposal did not meet the minimumqualifying score of 70. CDD is considering the release of a stand-alone RFP for theprovision of technical assistance to increase the FamilySource Program's capacity toserve persons with disabilities. CDD will report back with the outcome of this processonce it is completed.

The table below identifies the evaluation factors for both system support proposals.

PART II: Program Design and Approach 50

PART III: Resource Allocation/Cost Reasonableness 20


Release of Funding Recommendations and Appeals Procedures

Proposal scores and funding recommendations were released on August 4, 2009 inwritten correspondence from COO to each proposer. The letter also provided writtennotice of the proposal appeal process. Proposers wishing to file an appeal concerningthe selection of a contractor were required to hand-deliver the appeal in writing to theattention of the General Manager of the COD no later that five (5) business days fromthe date of the notice from COD informing proposers of the result of the RFP.

Proposers were advised that written appeals may not be more than three (3) typewrittenpages, shall request an appeals hearing be granted and include the following:

1. Name, address and telephone number of the proposer.2. Name of RFP to which the organization responded.3. Detailed statement of the grounds for appeal.

Furthermore, proposers were informed that written appeals may not include any newinformation that was not submitted with the original proposal. Only one appeal perproposal would be permitted. All appeals and protests must be submitted within the timelimits outlined in the RFP.

In an effort to provide as much information and transparency as possible, COD staffalso scheduled meetings with all proposers that were not recommended for funding toprovide them with a better understanding of the scores awarded and to assist them inmaking a decision whether or not to appeal.

Role of Community Action Board

The Community Action Board (CAB) is a 21-member advisory board made up ofrepresentatives of the City's poverty, private and pubic sectors. The CAB advises theMayor and City Council on issues relating to the Community Services Block Grant(CSBG). Both CSBG and Community Development Block Grant (COBG) funds areused to support the FamilySource Program. Therefore, the CAB plays an important rolein overseeing the COO programs funded by CSBG and CDBG dollars.

On August 13, 2009, the CAB met and voted to approve the COD fundingrecommendations and forwarded the recommendations to the Appeals Board for theirconsideration.

Appeals Board Action

On August 17 and 24, 2009 the Appeals Board, comprised of four CAB members,convened to consider the appeals of nine proposals. Appeals were presented in writingand each appellant was provided the opportunity to make a brief oral presentation to theBoard. At the direction of the Board, COO staff conducted a review of each appellant'sproposal, prepared written responses to each letter of appeal and was present at theAppeals Board hearing to respond to questions raised by the Board.


On August 24, 2009 the Appeals Board took the following actions:• As a result of the COO staff review, the Board directed staff to award additional

points to four proposers, which resulted in a revision of their total score, but didnot alter the funding recommendations for any of the noted FSC areas.

o 1736 Family Crisis Center (West Los Angeles) - 86 to 88o 1736 Family Crisis Center (Wilmington/San Pedro) - 88 to 90o Koreatown Youth and Community Center (Wilshire) - 85 to 86o Youth Policy Institute (North Valley) - 84 to 87

• The Board voted to forward no funding recommendation for the Southeast IIarea. The Coalition of Mental Health Professionals (CMHP) was the successfulproposer for the Southeast II area with a total score of 72 points. While theAppeals Board expressed concern with the proposer's capacity to deliverservices, the score of 72 is considered "good" and met the RFP minimumstandard of 70 points. Notwithstanding the Appeals Board's concerns, CODsupports the recommendation of CMHP and in an effort to address thoseconcerns prior to contract execution, the COD will:

o Require that CMHP submit its most recent, audited financial statements.While CMHP appears to be in good financial standing, that evaluation isbased on year old data. The COD will not execute an agreement until itsFinancial Management Division has conducted an updated review of theproposer's financial condition.

o Require that CMHP set-aside a minimum of $40,000 in their contractbudget for Participant Related Costs (this was a proposal requirement thatCMHP did not address).

o Provide monthly site visits to the CMHP FamilySource Center to ensurethat the contractor is provided adequate technical assistance.

At the conclusion of the appeals hearing the Board voted to forward COD'srecommendations, with its amendments, to the Housing, Community and EconomicDevelopment Committee of the City Council for its review and consideration.Attachment C to this transmittal summarizes the appeals, COD's response and theAppeals Board's actions.

Contract Negotiations

Proposers approved for funding shall be required to negotiate a contract with the City onan offer/counter-offer basis. The best terms and conditions originally offered in theproposal shall bind the negotiations. The City reserves the right to make a contractaward contingent upon the satisfactory completion by the proposer of certain specialconditions. The contract offer of the City may contain additional terms or terms differentfrom those as set forth in the "Contract Negotiations" section of the Request forProposal.

Mayor Villaraigosa Page 10 August 27,2009

FamilySource Specialized Services RFP

At the direction of the City Council and Mayor, the COD released a Specialized RFP onAugust 11, 2009 targeting existing City funded Neighborhood Action and SpeciallyTargeted Program contractors. This RFP will allow these organizations to compete foran additional 12 months of transition funding. The results of this RFP process andrecommendations will be transmitted under separate cover.

RLB:MC:ed

RICHARD L. BENBOWGeneral Manager

Attachments:A - Scoring results and COD recommendations for funding under the 2009

FamilySource Program Request for Proposals

B - Funding Distribution for the Recommended FamilySource Program LeadAgencies for 10/1/09 - 3131/10

C - Summary of appeals received for the 2009 FamilySource Program Request forProposals with COD response and Appeals Board actions

ATTACHMENT A~ ')MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMf -FAMI .... SOURCE RFP FUNDING RECOMMEND;.... IONS

Points 6-Month FundingAwarded Recommendation

AREA/PROPOSER (100 noints max) 10/1109 - 3/31/10*BOYLE HEIGHTS

1 EI Centro De Ayuda, Corporation 89 $500,0002 Girls Today Women Tomorrow 78 °€ANOGA PARI(3 New Economics for Women 92 $500,000

ECHO PARK4 EI Centro Del Pueblo 90 $500,000

Hell YWOOD5 Youth Policv Institute 83 $500,000

LINCOLN HEIGHTS6 Barrio Action Youth and Family Center 85 $500,000

NORTH Vi\.LLEY7 EI Nido Family Centers 93 $500,0008 Youth Policy Institute 84 (87)** 09 San Fernando Valley Small Business Development Corporatior 64 °S0UTH VALLEY10 New Economics for Women 90 $500,00011 Community Care at Home 83 012 Youth Policy Institute 83 013 Initiating Chanqe in Our Neiqhborhoods CDC (ICON CDC) 79 0

SOUTHEAST I14 The Children's Collective 85 $500,00015 Weinqart Center Association 83 016 Asian American Drug Abuse Proqrarn, Inc. 65 017 Los Angeles Urban League, Inc 40 0

SQUT~EASTU18 Coalition of Mental Health Professionals 72 $500,000

SOUTHWEST I19 1736 Familv Crisis Center 89 $500,00020 Youth Policy Institute 81 021 Los Angeles Brotherhood Crusade, Inc. 74 022 Los Angeles Urban League, Inc 53 023 Institute for Maximum Human Potential 47 0

LATE Los Angeles Conservation Corps (INELIGIBLE) 70 0SOUTHWEST"

24 Community Build, Inc. 80 $500,00025 Los Angeles Urban League, Inc 44 0

WATTS:26 Watts labor Community Action Committee 87 $500,00027 Los Angeles Urban League, Inc 43 0

LATE Watts Willowbrook Boys and Girls Club (INELIGIBLE) 48 0WEST LOS ANGELES

28 Community Care at Home 89 $500,00029 1736 Family Crisis Center 86 (88)** 0

WESTLAKE/PICe;) UNION30 Central City Neighborhood Partners 84 $500,000

WilMINGT0NlSAN PEDRO31 Toberman Neighborhood Center, Inc. 92 $500,00032 1736 Family Crisis Center 88 (90)** °WilSHIRE33 Oakwood Family Resource Center 89 $500,00034 Koreatown Youth & Community Center 85 (86)** 035 New Economics for Women 83 0

SYS:fEM SUPPORT - PROGRAM EV:A:LUAli'ION1 The University Corporation, CSU Northridge 80 $125,0002 Research for Strateqic Management LLC 64 0

S'ifSfFEM SUPPORT - TEChiNICAl ASSISTANCE1 Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches (NON-RESPONSIVE) 0 0

* Annual allocations will equal $1 million. "Revised scores are noted In ( ).

coI-ZW:i:::t:o~!;i:

enW(3ZW

~o<W...I

!oo0::0.W

~:::l0..-..~s...I C

~ ~LLtO0;;W"""0-Z~W-:i~:Eenoe0"""We0::"""W:::t:I-0::oLL

Zoi=:::lcoii:I-enCezcz;::)LL

...Ie!)<~1-0OZI-:::l

U.

~0::-eI

ecoeno

ooocio1.0

I

eno0 ....- -""" ....e~"""M-I -0)0e!::

~~;::r:;-

.....No('f)M

oocogN

o8cis

ooocis

ooog1.0

ooog1.0

ooocio1.0

.....No('f)M

o~c:ti0)N

ooocis

ooocio1.0

ooocio1.0

ooocio1.0

o8cio1.0

ooocioN

ooos1.0

I'-1.00)

l!iI'-

,...No('f)M

.....No('f)M

I'-1.00>l!iI'-

.....No('f)M

oo<0c:ti0)N

oooci1.0N

I'-1.00>l!iI'-

I'-1.00)

l!iI'-

I'-1.00>l!iI'-

oococ:ti0>N

oo(,0

c:ti0>N

oo(,0

c:ti~

oococ:ti(J)N

CDEcuz1:)CD'e-ll.jjj

~z~zW(!I<

~::::..so co a>alUU a>-e« ::Jo 0;::)<g,>-:=« Ew roOLLoJ!}0::-5,I- .-Z a>wIU..!J2...J~Wal

;:::..,ooOJ

£z ....w.!!:!:2 sOU:?:a>o::e05LLenen~U E-ro:2LLo~Zro00.U roWOl:?:owffizu

I'-1.00)

L6I'-

ooogo 0o 0<0. (,0(X) c:ti0) 0>N N

8<0gN

-6'oal ....U.!!:!_ coa>...JUala>we::>::1a.. 0...J<g,w:=oEo~C:::.x:I-L..zroWa..uos:...JoWW

-6'oalU-z ....w.!!:!:2Coa>:?:uc:::~o ::JLLOenen>-u:=-E:2roOLLz>-o~urow>:?:£iw5zen

-6'oalU-

alI-Zw:i:::I:o

S00w(3Zwec:(

c~..J:i:~C>o0::e,W

~::l0-00 I/)>.c..Je:- 0~ E1.1.U)0-w~0-ZMw-:i:~:i:0loe0'"wo0::'-w:I:I-0::o1.1.

Zoi=::lal0::I-00oC>zCZ::l1.1..

..JC>c:(~1-0OZ1-::::>u.

,_0100.-- -.......-M0_~M

ooocio10

ooocio10

ooocio10

ooocio10

ooo0.0N....

ooogN

~0::c:(I

eal00o

I

0100 ....- -"I"" ....O~~M

8oci10N

oalwOOo

~O::l ....o~oor---------il-----~-~----~-~----~--~--_+------~--------~lC)ZC)oal

~~u.cno~

ooo..0N....

ooo0.0N....

....NoriM

.....NoriM

.....NoriM

o8ci10

osasmN

CDEellZ1:)CD'[a,W~ztZwC>c:(

-soalo-0::WI-ZWowo0::::J G>O'E(J)Q)wo0::: (I)

>- e....I ::J- 0:J:(J)«>-1.1..=oEo~0(1)

~~C5~

!~g-1/1,9<1>~o ,-1::..0ro m(j) .-.- 0I/).c.m_« .-- ;::ro 1/1

.!:2 I::I:: 0"fie?(I) J-a.I t c:o 0.(J)0.0::J_(J)~E '0

- III0 .....0.rn ~ roI-(J)O

o-c(I)E

~-<C

00.J«00oQ.

~Q.

a:::ou.I-00W:::Jawa:::

!CIoa:::Q.

w

°a::::::Jo~

3iLL.enooN

• •

.,...•M

'tJ~ec.c.«

(I)JJ

cg ~(I) 0C.Oc.(/)cg "(/)(I) L..

.e2-ro ...iii (I):5:5II) (/)-ot::c&.(I) a.E ::JE (/)o ~u--e [i....-:t::c ro(I) .....E(/)1::0)cg..c:0.1-(I) •ci(I) '2.e(l)1-'tJ

'0 .(1)-.....ro(/) (/)(I) 0-a.c: 0o L.-oa.....- "mC.c:ro-= L..(I) 0Q.'+'-0.'0« (I)

>Q,)'ii).c:0I-f!:

0/:1 l-.e Q)-1::::I Q) I~o-c~~:..'- 0.. c_O:::l_!iii EO ,-Q)E°.eL. ...... 111oos;::=~O_S:

>01-=SQ)E c ,!:::cgQ).eu.OlllQ)='8 uS:OS I!I:: 0-.!ii:II)NcgQ)Ooa:::e.

.....Q,)C)

ron,

(ij >.- :s! "C.sa giG i --rom m G5 <tiL-I"--a. m"Emm .cOl .c Ol §~CX)a. g-.S C g-.S C<tIO o.<tI.c ;e00 0~~-c;:g ..- "CO ..- "C 0 ..-'0' • 'OC:;:; • "Cc::;:; • "C1ll- •Q)'I::I' 0"" 0 C") C :J ro C") C.2 CO

C") 'O.c'<t '1::1''c '0 .. '+- C CJ)

cOl~ro '+- "C " <tI "C "0 ro-CO "0m III COO (ij]2a5 III -ro]2a5 II) al g>'O III~e .Q -:;:; Q) ~ > > > >

'O"CCO= ro e Q) :t::E e Q):t::E e 1: '5> ~ 0ro,S"gL.. §::.S E §::.S E .....c8 '-Co. 0. 0. "Cco c..,Q 0. '0 0 Q).E ro .1,1) 8

~<tI.1,I)0 0. 0.'0< C>E- "Cou < Q) .c 1,1) <o .- 'OOQ)Q) 0 ~

'Ou_<tI u"E E g Q) 0 L.. .....(/)ro..... Q)roO:J 'cU '20 <tI-'O~ CJ)ouo Q) Q) ~.S .....u:: co~O 0 0 «0 a.

CPIll(;jQ)() II) CP .s~ . t:: L..(/)..c.cro.cCJ) ..c ..c ~o.g Q)_ .....m-u.co~ iO~

...-00. Eco .c (/) I:guo.(/)Ocpt::'S(/)- CPo 8.8 e I,I):J III U0. 0 Ill- o.u E II)-1,1) CJ).2 'So.a.OL-_co 0. (I)"C 1,1) o.(/) 0.1,1) t::.cID ....~O

:J Q) "C ro co -1,1) co -1,1) co- ....ocp(/).croQ) II)"- CP ..... o. ...~ ....CJ)=J: -_= J:'s J:.l!:l ~.EQ)-"'>"''0 l5 O:J -ro -ro... c .....co "- L.. .c:.g.8:1:::'laQ) -;Q) CPI/)- .c~ "C(/)C/) J: - Ih 0 - .-J:.c: ..c:.c "'I:t:::alll~-(I)~1ll1ll -- _ ......

I/)~.g.g£ I/)~ I/)(I) 1:)'[8. o '8w'0 '0 .- "00 ,,1::: Cp 0.'- :a "CI: Ih-Ill 1:0. c:8. .!:: Cp :J g c:cp~§m2: CPa. CPa. "0 III1/).....1.2 roE .~ o 8. ~ E :J E :J >.,2 ~ g.E > Q) 0 E Ih EIh co ... Q) 'T'...J (I)om.oCio o ~ o ~ E .- - Q)> > .-CJ'-o ..... CJ.~ iOQ) -:I:::

~lI::::lll.z:. ~'> III> "01:'- ..l.='- III '- Q) '-oll:::1:::>~

C ~ &1 ~'g .... L.. ~:;::;$,Q .....(I)"'lI:: -lI::i.m i.m .- .c:.- .-III :J a. a:I'OIh~,QOEIll~cO~ E I/) E Ih '0 Q) .c:.!! co.c x£i~_1,1) ~.I,I)

t::1ll t::1ll CU 1- ....w·- C"')cu.c: co.c: Cp c: . 0 ~0. -co .... 0.1- 0.1- o.CUW-W(I) '0Cp • C c: Cp • III • Q. c: Q) <tI0'012012 o~ 0"0 «'OO .....uCE N.!G5 (I)G5 cO Cp '-._ 0.._ 0 Q)II)c: a. u, a. Q) III'2 cp'2 cpco1:)Ill2:!!!E C>..c:Cp a. a. .... J:II) J:CP J:~II)~IllQ):J roI-"O«=«ro 1-"0 1-"0 I-CUI/)Q)(I)o..(I) 0..

"003.J:::. 0>g-.~ C

"00 0"OC:,:::; Ic ::J ro 'IItI'ro ...."0 "0ro~~ II)

><lI~ E 2g;.~ E 0..ro _00 0~"oou

<lIO ~'co<lI0

<lIU II):S(f) .Q

.....LL iii~2»ro2 ~8--16 0..1/)g> «I -00

II) .....=.J:::. ..c2,- t:: -ro~ 0 .....Q)Z 1\i<ll'- ..c.J:::.o Q)

_ .....U.J:::. I/) 00(J) ..... "Ot::c '- c::&,- 0Q) .... (1)0..Cl(J) E ::JC c E 00ro 0 o ~..s:::,:::; u.~uro_"0 II) >roc ... ~:,:::;<lI -ll::c: E c:: m2E (1)-o 0 E 00c..u ~<lI MQ) Q) «I.J:::.

'0.J:::. '- 0..1-I- Cl

II) •M0"0c: CI) Q)0>1'- ' CI)"c......"Om Clo c ~ ..cCl) mz2m 1-"0 a..

transmittal - los angelesclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-0560_rpt_cdd_08-27-09.pdf · a....

Documents