Mother’s boyfriend admits to disciplining 10-year-old boy who was allegedly murdered in 2018

By City News Service

Aman who is charged along with his live-in girlfriend in her 10-year-old son’s death acknowledged to investigators in an audio-recorded interview played Thursday in court that he had disciplined the boy by hitting him with a belt, slapping him and pushing him to the floor in their Lancaster apartment.

Kareem Ernesto Leiva, 37, and Heather Maxine Barron, 33, are charged with one count each of murder and torture involving Anthony Avalos’ June 2018 death, along with two counts of child abuse involving two of the boy’s half-siblings, identified in court only as “Destiny O.” and “Rafael O.”

The murder count includes the special circumstance allegation of murder involving the infliction of torture. Over the objection of Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Hatami, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office dropped its bid for the death penalty against the two after the 2020 election of District Attorney George Gascón, who issued a directive that “a sentence of death is never an appropriate resolution in any case.”

Barron and Leiva now face a maximum of life in prison without the possibility of parole if they are convicted as charged.

During a three-hour interview with Los Angeles County sheriff’s detectives in June 2018, Leiva said he pushed the boy on one occasion and “he just fell.” He said he believed the boy struck his head.

“O.K., is there any doubt in your mind that there is nobody else that is causing that bleeding to his brain in the house?” sheriff’s Detective Scott Mitchell asked Leiva.

“No, that was, that was nobody but me,” the defendant told investigators.

When asked if he believed whether the discipline that involved pushing caused the bleeding to the brain, he responded, “Yeah.”

“I didn’t do it to hurt him. I did it to get him to act right,” he told investigators. “I didn’t have no intent of making him pass out ...”

Leiva also acknowledged that he would “whoop” Anthony on the butt with a belt. He said he had also slapped the boy on the cheeks because “he was misbehaving,” but maintained that he didn’t do it “as hard as I can.”

“Was there anything that was seen or heard that would lead you to believe that any of those bruises were from anybody else but you? The bottom line is did you put those bruises on his body?” the detective asked.

“Yeah,” Leiva responded.

When asked if he really knew why “all of this had happened,” the defendant responded, “Maybe I need help ... And I can’t blame anybody but myself because I’m the one, you know. It’s my fault. Everything is just my fault.”

Leiva said the boy and his two half-siblings had also been subjected to punishment in which they were forced to kneel on uncooked rice.

In her first two interviews with police, Anthony’s mother denied any knowledge of alleged abuse of her children, but told investigators shortly before her arrest that she was afraid of Leiva -- whom she said had abused her - - and that he had punished her children, according to sheriff’s Detective Adam Kirste.

The boy’s two halfsiblings testified Wednesday that they had seen their mother’s boyfriend repeatedly dropping Anthony on the bedroom floor shortly before his death.

Destiny, now 13 years old, testified that Anthony had been forced to undergo a series of punishments the night before her mother called 911 to report that he was not breathing, including Leiva picking him up and dropping him “probably 10 (times) or a little more.”

“I think it was giving him brain damage,” she said, noting that the boy was “saying weird things.”

“Where was mommy?” the prosecutor asked.

“She was watching,” the seventh-grader testified.

She said her mother subsequently directed her and Rafael not to say anything to the police when they were called to the house the next day.

Rafael, who is now 12, said he saw Anthony being dropped by Leiva about 20 times the night before his mother called 911 to report that his half-brother wasn’t breathing. He said his mother “didn’t try to protect Anthony.”

He acknowledged that he didn’t initially tell police about what had happened because he was trying to protect his mother, but testified that he didn’t want to cover it up any longer “now that I see what she did.”

In testimony Thursday, another of Anthony’s siblings broke down in tears when asked if he liked living with his mother and her boyfriend.

The 10-year-old boy, identified in court as Angel G., told the judge “they would constantly hit us.”

In interviews with Los Angeles County sheriff’s detectives after Anthony was taken first to Antelope Valley Hospital and then to UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital, Barron maintained that she “didn’t do nothing.”

“He has been throwing himself. He has. I promise you ... He has been throwing himself around,” Barron told investigators, maintaining that the boy had been “acting up and he threw himself (on the floor) because he didn’t want to eat.”

“I know you guys are coming at me like, like I’m Gabriel’s mom,” she said, in an apparent reference to the case against Pearl Fernandez, who was convicted along with her boyfriend of murdering her 8-year-old son. “And it was nothing like that. I promise I did not hurt my son. I did not let nobody hurt my son. I promise you to God. You can give me a lie detector test. I did not do this.”

In a second interview with detectives, Barron acknowledged that she hadn’t initially told them that Leiva had been at the house because she was “scared” and didn’t want to go to jail.

She maintained that Leiva “didn’t touch Anthony” and said that “no one did anything to him,” but said Leiva wasn’t supposed to be at her apartment because it is a low-income facility and had been threatened by the managers that she would be kicked out if anybody kept coming over.

When asked by Deputy District Attorney Saeed Teymouri about Barron appearing to be “hysterical” and “stuttering” at times during the audiotaped interviews with detectives, sheriff’s Sgt. Robert Wilkinson said, “It appeared that she was trying, in my opinion, to fake an emotion. I never saw any tears.”

Several first responders testified Tuesday that the woman was not crying or hysterical as they tried to revive her son.

Sheriff’s Deputy Brandon Vanarsdale testified that emergency personnel who were treating the boy appeared to be more upset than his mother was.

In his opening statement of the trial, Teymouri told the judge that Barron and Leiva tortured and abused Anthony for two weeks before his death, while an attorney for Leiva countered that his client should be acquitted of murder.

“Anthony Avalos graduated the fourth grade on June 7th, 2018, and for two consecutive weeks he was abused and tortured every single day culminating to when the first responders found his lifeless body on June 20th,” Teymouri said.

The boy died early the next morning.

Teymouri told the judge that there had been multiple contacts with the county’s Department of Children and Family Services dating back to 2014.

“She’s been torturing her kids for a long period of time, and once defendant Leiva came into the picture it turned deadly,” he said.

The prosecutor said the boy was “already brain dead” and had been lying on the floor in the family’s townhouse “for at least a day, possibly more” when Barron called 911 to seek assistance for the boy, and that the two “concocted a story that Anthony Avalos had injured himself.”

The boy had “new and old injuries — literally from head to toe,” the deputy district attorney said, showing a photo of the boy while he was alive and then in a video from the hospital in which some of his injuries were depicted.

Leiva subsequently acknowledged that he had the boy kneel on uncooked rice and admitted that he had rendered him unconscious for about five minutes just days earlier, according to the prosecutor.

Leiva’s attorney countered that the evidence would demonstrate that there is “reasonable doubt” involving the murder charge against his client.

Dan Chambers said the two major issues will be “a lack of intent to kill” and the issues of “causation.”

The defense lawyer questioned the accounts of the boy’s half-siblings, whose testimony he said has changed over time.

Chambers told the judge that many of the statements by the children are “inconsistent,” saying that their initial statements “showed a lack of any actions on behalf of Mr. Leiva with respect to the treatment of Anthony” and that “Mr. Leiva’s conduct allegedly grew worse” as the children underwent further ques- tioning.

“Those inconsistencies in the evidence will be apparent and once we demonstrate that it will show that what the children claim they say Mr. Leiva doing is inconsistent with the medical evidence,” the defense attorney said.

“This case is a case of severe abuse, but as to Mr. Leiva, it is not a murder,” the defense lawyer told the judge.

Barron’s attorneys reserved their right to make an opening statement when the defense begins its portion of the case.

Barron and Leiva were charged in June 2018 with the boy’s killing and were subsequently indicted by a Los Angeles County grand jury in October 2018. They remain jailed without bail.

Last October, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors formally approved a $32 million settlement of a lawsuit filed by the boy’s relatives -- two of whom testified last week that they notified the county’s Department of Children and Family Services about the alleged abuse. The lawsuit contended that multiple social workers failed to properly respond to reports of abuse of Anthony and his siblings.

The lawsuit cited other high-profile deaths of children who were also being monitored by the DCFS — 8-year-old Gabriel Fernandez and 4-yearold Noah Cuatro, both of Palmdale — to allege “systemic failures” in the agency.

This story was originally published by ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

It’s been decades since the intersection of forensic science and criminal justice first became a pop culture phenomenon, popularized by countless TV shows, movies and books. But the public’s growing awareness of forensic techniques obscures a far more complex field that’s chock full of bogus science — and the people who champion it, often for profit.

For years, ProPublica has reported on these dubious techniques as they’ve wormed their way into every corner of our real-life criminal justice system.

So, what’s legitimate forensic science and what’s junk? Let’s start with the basics.

What Is Junk Science?

Junk science refers to any theory or method presented as scientific fact without sufficient research or evidence to support it. Some types of junk science have virtually no supporting evidence, while others are oversimplifications of real but complex science findings.

Adding to the risk they pose to the justice system, many forms of junk science are very subjective and depend highly on individual interpretation.

How to Spot Junk Science in Forensics

When ProPublica has reported on junk science, we’ve found many common traits. They could include:

- It has limited or no scientific evidence or research supporting it.

- It is presented as absolutely certain or conclusive, with no mention of error rates.

- It relies on subjective criteria or interpretation.

- It oversimplifies a complex science.

- It takes just a few days to become an “expert.”

Examples of Junk Science in Forensics and Law Enforcement

Tracing the spread of junk science through the criminal justice system can be difficult. But ProPublica has followed forensic junk science in various forms for years.

911 Call Analysis

Is it forensics or is it junk science?

By Sophia Kovatch, Pamela Colloff and Brett Murphy, and ProPublica

Police and prosecutors trained in 911 call analysis are taught they can spot a murderer on the phone by analyzing speech patterns, tone, pauses, word choice and even the grammar used during emergency calls. These are known as “guilty indicators,” according to the tenets of the program. A misplaced word, too long of a pause or a phrase of politeness could reveal a killer.

Analysis of 911 calls appears in the criminal justice system in lots of different ways. Some detectives say it’s a tool to help build a case or prepare to interrogate a suspect. They have used it to help extract confessions. Others present their analyses to prosecutors or enlist Tracy Harpster, the program’s creator and a retired deputy police chief from Ohio, to consult on cases.

During Harpster’s career, he had almost no homicide investigation experience or scientific background. He developed the 911 call analysis technique based on a small study for his master’s thesis in 2006. After teaming up with the FBI to promote his findings nationwide, there was enough demand from law enforcement to create a full-fledged training curriculum.

Since the technique’s development, 911 call analysis has been used in investigations across the country. ProPublica documented more than 100 cases in 26 states where Harpster’s methods played a role in arrests, prosecutions and convictions — likely a fraction of the actual figure. In addition, Harpster says he has personally consulted in more than 1,500 homicide investigations nationwide.

Despite the seeming pervasiveness of the technique, researchers who have studied 911 calls have not been able to corroborate Harpster’s claims. A 2020 study from the FBI warned against using 911 call analysis to bring actual cases. A separate FBI study in 2022 said applying 911 analysis may actually increase bias. And academic studies from researchers at Villanova and James Madison universities came to similar conclusions.

Ultimately, five studies have not been able to find scientific evidence that 911 call analysis works.

In a 2022 interview, Harpster defended his program and noted that he has also helped defense attorneys argue for suspects’ innocence. He maintained that critics don’t understand the research or how to appropriately use it, a position he has repeated in correspondence with law enforcement officials for years. “The research is designed to find the truth wherever it goes,” Harpster said.

Example: ProPublica chronicled how 911 call analysis was used in the case of Jessica Logan, who was convicted of killing her baby after a detective trained by Harpster analyzed her call and then testified about it during trial.

Bloodstain-Pattern Analysis

Bloodstain-pattern analysis is a forensic discipline whose practitioners regard the drops, spatters and trails of blood at a crime scene as clues that can sometimes be used to reconstruct and even reverse-engineer the crime itself.

The reliability of bloodstain-pattern analysis has never been definitively proven or quantified, but largely due to the testimony of criminalist Herbert MacDonell, it was steadily admitted in court after court around the country in the 1970s and ’80s. MacDonell spent his career teaching weeklong “institutes” in bloodstainpattern analysis at police departments around the country, training hundreds of officers who, in turn, trained hundreds more.

While there is no index that lists cases in which bloodstain-pattern analysis played a role, state appellate court rulings show that the technique has played a factor in felony cases across the country. Additionally, it has helped send innocent people to prison. From Oregon to Texas to New York, convictions that hinged on the testimony of a bloodstain-pattern analyst have been overturned and the defendants acquitted or the charges dropped.

In 2009, a watershed report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences cast doubt on the discipline, finding that “the uncertainties associated with bloodstain-pattern analysis are enormous,” and that experts’ opinions were generally “more subjective than scientific.” More than a decade later, few peer-reviewed studies exist, and research that might determine the accuracy of analysts’ findings is close to nonexistent.

When MacDonell, who died in 2019, was asked whether he ever considered changing his course structure or certification process after seeing students give faulty testimony, MacDonell answered in the negative. “You can’t control someone else’s thinking,” he said. “The only thing you can do is go in and testify to the contrary.”

Example: ProPublica has also reported on how bloodstain-pattern analysis was used to convict Joe Bryan of killing his wife, Mickey.

Other Junk Science Examples

ProPublica’s reporting on junk science in forensics goes beyond bloodstainpattern analysis and 911 call analysis. We’ve also covered: The pervasiveness of Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN, a means of dissecting written suspect statements while looking for markers of deception.

How the FBI used unproven photo analysis in its investigations for years.

Why police and prosecutors kept using roadside drug tests with known high rates of false positives.

How Does Junk Science Spread in Forensics?

Junk science can spread a lot of different ways, but there are some common patterns in how it spreads across forensics and law enforcement.

Often, junk science originates when an individual devises a forensic technique based on minimal or narrow experience and data. For example, the original 911 call analysis training curriculum was based on a study of just 100 emergency calls, most of which came from a single state.

The creators of these techniques then put together curriculums and workshops targeting law enforcement at every level around the country. As more police officers take these courses, these techniques are employed more often in investigating crimes and interrogating suspects. When officers testify in court, the impact of junk forensic techniques makes its way into the justice system.

Other times, prosecutors call the creators and trainees of these forensic methods as expert witnesses, as was common with bloodstain-pattern analysis.

In the courtroom, it’s up to the judge to decide whether certain evidence is admissible. While judges are experts in the law, they aren’t necessarily experts in the scientific disciplines that make up forensics.

Once a type of junk science is admitted in a case, other prosecutors and judges can use that as precedent to allow it in future cases too. In this way, new junk science methods like 911 call analysis can spread quickly through the justice system.

How Long Has Junk Science Been a Problem in Criminal Justice?

Forensic science has had a junk science problem for decades. In the 1980s and ’90s, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies used faulty microscopic hair comparison in hundreds of cases, only formally acknowledging the problematic science in 2015. Since at least the 1990s, law enforcement has used a written content analysis tool with no scientific backing to interpret witness and suspect statements.

The 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, which reviewed the state of forensic science in the United States, found that a lot of forensic evidence “was admitted into criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.” A 2016 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that despite efforts to fund forensic science research, there was still a major gap in understanding the scientific validity of many forensic methods.

In 2017, the Trump administration allowed the charter for the National Commission on Forensic Science to expire, further limiting the progress on validating forensic science methods. Since then, many forensic professionals have critiqued the junk science problems rampant in forensics and criminal justice.

Arcadia City Notices CITY OF ARCADIA NOTICE INVITING BIDS

The City of Arcadia (“City”) will receive in a sealed envelope plainly marked on the outside “SEALED BID FOR Water Main Replacement Project / Project No. 65720523 - DO NOT OPEN WITH REGULAR MAIL” at the office of the City Clerk, located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007, no later than Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:00 A.M., at which time or thereafter said Bids will be opened and read aloud. Bids received after this time will be returned unopened. Bids shall be valid for sixty (60) calendar days after the Bid opening date.

Bids must be submitted to the City on the City’s Contract Bid Forms Prospective Bidders may obtain Bid Documents only from the ArcadiaCA.gov. Please contact the Public Works Services Department at (626) 254-2720 for more information, including availability of Bid Documents. One or more Pre-Bid Conference and Site Walks will be held on the date(s), at the time(s) and under the conditions indicated in the Bid Documents. Bidder SHOULD attend.

All Bids must be addressed, sealed in an envelope and received by the office of the City Clerk no later than 11:00 A.M. on Tuesday, February 28, 2023. All bids will be publicly opened, examined and read aloud at the City’s Clerk’s office at that time. Bids shall be valid for 60 days after the bid opening date. Bids must be accompanied by cash, a certified or cashier’s check, or a Bid Bond in favor of the City in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the submitted Total Bid Price. The successful Bidder will be required to furnish the City with a Performance Bond and a Payment Bond, each equal to 100% of the successful Bid, prior to execution of the Contract. All bonds are to be secured from a surety that meets all of the State of California bonding requirements, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.120, and is admitted by the State of California.

Each Bidder shall be a licensed contractor pursuant to the Business and Professions Code and shall be licensed in the following appropriate classification(s) of contractor’s license(s), for the work Bid upon, and must maintain the license(s) throughout the duration of the Contract: Class A or C-34.

Bidders are advised that this Contract is a public work for purposes of the California Labor Code, which requires payment of prevailing wages. City has obtained from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations the general prevailing rates, and will place them on file at the City’s office and make them available to any interested party upon request.

Pursuant to Labor Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, all contractors and subcontractors that wish to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, or enter into a contract to perform public work must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. No bid will be accepted nor any contract entered into without proof of the contractor’s and subcontractors’ current registration with the Department of Industrial Relations to perform public work.

City reserves the right to reject any or all Bids, to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received, and to be the sole judge of the merits of the respective Bids received.

City Of Arcadia

Publish February 6, 13, 2023

ARCADIA WEEKLY

Notice Inviting Proposals

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Arcadia is accepting proposals for Arcadia Police Department Gun Range Maintenance Services. Proposals shall be submitted in a sealed envelope marked “Proposal for Arcadia Police Department Gun Range Maintenance Services” and shall be sent to the City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, 240 W. Huntington Drive, P.O. Box 60021, Arcadia, California, 91066-6021. Proposals are due no later than 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 21, 2023, at which time said proposals shall be publicly opened and the names of the proposers shall be read Copies of the proposal may be obtained from the Purchasing Office, City of Arcadia, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, 91007, or by emailing Amber Abeyta, Management Analyst, at aabeyta@ArcadiaCA.gov. Said specifications and proposal forms are hereby referred to and incorporated herein and made a part by reference and all proposals must comply therewith.

The City of Arcadia reserves the right to accept in whole or part or reject any and all proposals and to waive any informalities in the proposal process, and all proposals are binding for a period of ninety (90) days after the proposal opening and may be retained by the City for examination and comparison, as specified in the proposal documents. The award of this contract shall be made by the Arcadia City Council.

City Of Arcadia

Purchasing Office

/s/ Linda Rodriguez

Assistant City Clerk

Dated: February 1, 2023

Publish: February 6 and February 9

ARCADIA WEEKLY

El Monte City Notices

CITY OF EL MONTE NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PROPOSED SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT #2

TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT #1 TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY HUD

Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023

Time: 7:00 p.m.

Place: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:

1. Attend the City Council meeting at 11333 Valley Blvd., El Mon te, CA 91731

2. Turn your TV to Channel 3; or

3. City’s website at http://www.elmonteca.gov/378/Council-Meet ing-Videos.

Description: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of El Monte (the “City”) will consider Substantial Amendment #2 to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan (AAP) and Substantial Amendment #1 to the FY 2022-2023 AAP. The Annual Action Plan sets forth specific activities and expenditures using funds received through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

When a substantial change (i.e. adding an activity, canceling an activity, or redirecting funds) is proposed to the City’s AAP, the City requires that the public be notified and a Public Hearing be held to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed substantial changes.

The City is proposing Substantial Amendment #2 for the FY 20212022 AAP and Substantial Amendment #1 for the FY 2022-2023 AAP to reallocate $3,787,951.94 in CDBG funds. The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the modification in activity funding levels for programs. The following programs may be added, increased, reduced, or eliminated at the discretion of the City Council:

City Council’s approval of the agenda, if possible. The City Council shall be under no obligation to recognize a speaker who submits a speaker card on a particular agenda item after the City Council has completed its handling of the agenda item and has moved on to the next item of business on the agenda. Persons wishing to comment on closed session matters must submit their speaker card before the City Council goes into closed session. As members of the public are now free to attend City Council meetings in person, the City Council will no longer receive public comment by telephone.

(2) By submitting written comments, provided such written comments are received by the City Clerk at least 30 minutes prior to the posted meeting time. Written comments may be submitted via electronic mail at: cityclerk@elmonteca.gov. Written comments will be provided to members of the City Council and will be entered into the record of the proceedings to the extent they relate to matters listed on the posted agenda or otherwise address matters/issues within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. Persons submitting written comments are encouraged to identify the specific item(s) on the agenda their comment(s) relate to or whether they relate to non-agendized matters. Written comments will not be read aloud.

Accessibility: It is the intention of the City of El Monte to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. The City of El Monte will attempt to accommodate attendees in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City at least 72 hours prior to the above scheduled public hearing to establish need and to determine if additional accommodation is feasible.

For more information, contact Stephanie Fender, Senior Housing Program Analyst for the City of El Monte Community and Economic Development Department at (626) 258-8624 or via e-mail at sfender@elmonteca.gov.

Published: Monday, February 6, 2023

Gabriel Ramirez, City Clerk City of El Monte

EL MONTE EXAMINER

Rosemead City Notices

City of Rosemead Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)

Inviting Applications for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Year 2023-2024

APPLICATIONS DUE MARCH 6, 2023

The Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the City of Rosemead for projects that promote the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic opportunities, particularly for low- and moderate-income persons. The City anticipates receiving an allocation of approximately $750,000 and may use up to 15% ($112,500) of the allocation to provide public services.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Rosemead is currently accepting applications from non-profit organizations requesting funds to provide public services to low- and moderate-income residents. Prioritization will be given to organizations that demonstrate the capacity to implement the program in accordance with the requirements established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and whose services will help revitalize neighborhoods, promote economic development, and improve community facilities and services in Rosemead.

Grand Total $3,787,951.94

$3,787,951.94

Availability of Document for Public Comment: The City of El Monte encourages citizen participation in the planning process. A Public Review and Public Hearing are required when a substantial amendment to the AAP is proposed. The Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

Availability of Document for Public Comment: The City of El Monte encourages citizen participation in the planning process. A Public Review and Public Hearing are required when a substantial amendment to the AAP is proposed The Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

A copy of the Plan is on file and available for public review at the City of El Monte Community and Economic Development webpage at https://www.ci.el-monte.ca.us/547/News-Notices

A copy of the Plan is on file and available for public review at the City of El Monte Community and Economic Development webpage at https://www.ci.el-monte.ca.us/547/News-Notices.

ELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS: Applications must demonstrate that the service to be provided will principally benefit persons of low- and moderate-income (households earning less than 80% of Los Angeles median income). Examples of eligible services include housing and/or support programs for victims of domestic violence, abused children/youth, the disabled, seniors, or the homeless. Additionally, services addressing unemployment, inadequate healthcare, crime prevention, or substance abuse rehabilitation are eligible. Again, all programs must benefit persons of low and moderate incomes. Applications will also be accepted from organizations seeking to provide fair housing and landlord-tenant services in accordance with HUD requirements.

Persons wishing to offer public comment for this meeting may do so in one of the following ways:

Persons wishing to offer public comment for this meeting may do so in one of the following ways:

Availability of Document for Public Comment: The City of El Monte encourages citizen participation in the planning process. A Public Review and Public Hearing are required when a substantial amendment to the AAP is proposed The Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.

(1) By directly addressing the City Council in person at the time(s) allotted on the agenda for such comment. Persons wishing to address the City Council in person are asked to fill-out a blue speaker card providing their name and indicating the specific agenda item(s) they wish to comment on or if they wish to speak during the portion of the agenda designated for comment on non-agendized matters. Speaker cards should be handed to the City Clerk or the Sergeant at Arms (a uniformed El Monte Police officer) before the City Council’s approval of the agenda, if possible. The City Council shall be under no obligation to recognize a speaker who submits a speaker card on a particular agenda item after the

DEADLINE: All interested applicants must complete and submit an application, available at www.cityofrosemead.org. Applications will be accepted until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, March 6, 2023, at the City of Rosemead, City Manager’s Office, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770.

A copy of the Plan is on file and available for public review at the City of El Monte Community and Economic Development webpage at https://www.ci.el-monte.ca.us/547/News-Notices

Questions regarding this NOFA should be directed to Charlotte Cabeza, Management Analyst, at (626) 569-2153 or at HousingDivision@cityofrosemead.org.

Persons wishing to offer public comment for this meeting may do so in one of the following ways:

(1) By directly addressing the City Council in person at the time(s) allotted on the agenda for such comment. Persons wishing to address the City Council in person are asked to fill-out a blue speaker card providing their name and indicating the specific agenda item(s) they wish to comment on or if they wish to speak during the portion of the agenda designated for comment on non-agendized matters. Speaker cards should be handed to the City Clerk or the Sergeant at Arms (a uniformed El Monte Police officer) before the

Notice and Publication Date: February 6, 2023

ROSEMEAD READER

(1) By directly addressing the City Council in person at the time(s) allotted on the agenda for such comment. Persons wishing to address the City Council in person are asked to fill-out a blue speaker card providing their name and indicating the specific agenda item(s) they wish to comment on or if they wish to speak during the portion of the agenda designated