FULL PACKET_2009-05-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan 2008 Action Plan for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) B. Citizen Participation and Public Comment 1. Briefly describe how the grantee followed its citizen participation plan regarding this proposed substantial amendment (limit 250 words). Response: As required, the City of Santa Ana utilized its established Citizen Participation Plan as the framework for making the public aware of the receipt and use of HPRP funds. Only one modification to these established procedures was made -the one exception is allowed under the approved HPRP regulations. The City published notices announcing the receipt of HPRP funds and the process by which members of the public can review and comment on the proposed substantial amendment to the City's 2008-2009 Action Plan. The notices were published in local English, Spanish and Vietnamese-language newspapers. Additionally, the City posted the draft substantial amendment on its website (www.santa-ana.or~). The one modification to the Citizen Participation process, as allowed by HUD's HPRP Notice, was to reduce the typical 30-day public comment period to 12 days. The City published the aforementioned notice on April 15, 2009. The notice announced the public review and comment period, which began on April 16 and ended on April 27, 2009, and also announced a public hearing to be held by the City's Community Redevelopment and Housing Commission on April 21, 2009. 2. Provide the appropriate response regarding this substantial amendment by checking one of the following options: ^ Grantee did not receive public comments. ® Grantee received and accepted all public comments. ^ Grantee received public comments and did not accept one or more of the comments. 3. Provide a summary of the public comments regarding this substantial amendment. Include a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons for non-acceptance. Response: Four comments were received during the comment period: Two were submitted verbally via telephone: One requested information on how an individual could apply for assistance. Staff informed the caller that the program will be operated by nonprofit service providers that are yet to be selected. A second caller requested information regarding the program but did not leave a return call phone number. Two written comment were provided (see page 12 & 13). One commenter expressed support for the application, but was critical of local service providers. No return contact information was provided by the commenter so City staff was unable to respond. The second commenter asked to 3 HUD-40119 4/28/09 19E-6