HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-05; City Council; 5645-1; Fifthe Year HCD Block Grant Applicationrt CITY OF CARLSBAD
i
AGENDA BILL NO. 5645 Gum 1arran t _ Initial
Dept. Hd.
DATE: December 5, 1978 C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
DEPARTMENT: Redevelopment (Planning)
SUBJECT: FIFTH • YEAR 11CD BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION
Statement of _the Matter
eting of November 7, 1978 the City Council took action
At its me
notifying the etinty of San Diego that it desired to participate in the
Urban County's Fifth Year Block Grant application. At that time staff
advised Council that all proposals for funding would be analyzed and
a recommended program of funding presented for consideration.
Stair has completed its analysis and arrived at.a recommendation.
The analysis process is detailed in the attached memo from the Redevelop-
', ment Coordinator dated 11/27/78.
EXHIBITS
Memo to City Manager from Redevelopment Coordinator, dated 11/27/78
Resolution Sto-J
RECOWIENDATION
If Council concurs with the staff recommendation after considering
information presented during the hearing, it should adopt the attached
Resolution -No. C7&3 j
In the event Council desires further staff research -it should
so direct.
Council action:
12-5-78 Council adopted Resolution 5631, requesting funding for Fifth
. . Year Block Grant Projects.
,KEMORANDUM
DATE: November 27, 1978
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager (,,n"
VV
FROM: Jack Henthorn, Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: FIFTH YEAR BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
At its meeting of November 7, 1978 the City Council notified the
County of San Diego of its intent to participate in the fifth year
of the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program.
Additionally, at that time Council was notified of a number of proposals
which were to be analyzed and presented for consideration at a public
hearing. It is the purpose of this memo to explain the analysis process
and the rationale for arriving at the staff recommendation.
Neighborhood Revitalization Area
The area designated as eligible to receive funding from this
program is unchanged from last year, and is shown on attachment "A".
This area (Federal Census Tract 179.00) is in all probability the only
tract in the City with demographic data capable of supporting an application.
In addition, the City's recent efforts to bring about stabilization and
revitalization in the area strongly suggests a locally identified need
for grant related activities.
Discussion: Attachment "B" sets forth the general type projects
previously presented to the Council. A review of HUD regulations in-
dicated that the following proposals were ineligible for funding:
a. Bus/NCTD related proposals
b. Tree trimming
C. Lease of R.R. right of way
d. Undergrounding of utilities
e. San Dieguito Little Theater
f. Beach improvement
Additionally, several of the proposals are funded with fourth
year funds which will be released shortly after the first of the year.
These proposals are as follows:
a. Improvement of State and Grand property
b. Sidewalks on Grand fro,a State Street to the R.R. tracks
C. Northwest corner of State and Grand
Housing related proposals are not recommended for funding due to
the fact that the third year rehab program evaluation will be under-
taken in January. At this point it is entirely possible that County
staff will recommend revisions to the programs which could include
consideration of proposals made during this year's application process.
MW
Correspondence with the County staff indicates that they do not
anticipate a departure from the fourth year funding strategy as
expressed by the board. (attachment C) That strategy basically
called for funding to be applied in the following areas:
+ Residential Rehab Programs
+ Public Improvements
+ Site Acquisition for housing construction
+ Planning studies
+ Administrative costs
Social service and counseling programs were proposed by three
groups and one individual. Although eligible for funding under
the HUD regulations two situations exist which resulted in these
programs not being recommended for funding.
First, these programs are not highly emphasized in the County's
funding strategy at the current time. Emphasis appears to be in
the areas of economic development, housing, and public improvements.
Secondly, it appears as though these services might not principally
benefit target area residents in that a community center of the nature
proposed would probably draw from far beyond the target area boundaries.
Therefore, it is recommended that the proponents of these projects
be advised to approach the county directly for funding on a sub regional
basis.
Recommended FIFTH YEAR Program
The projects recommended to be forwarded to the County for
fun2 ing in the fifth year are basically extensions of the yet -to -be
implemented fourth year Village Area Improvement Program. The projects
recommended in the fifth year would carry out public improvement plans
which will be completed between now and late spring utilizing fourth
year funds.
However, the total list of projects found to be eligible under
the guidelines promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the County of San Diego is as follows:
+ Alley improvements
+ Pedestrian safety items
Development of standards
Incorporation of rest areas
+ Public information signing
+ Sidewalk improvements
+ Intersection signalization
+ Street trees and furnishings
+ Off-street parking
+ Traffic islands on Elm
+ Property acquisition
+ Administrative costs
Council may desire to direct staff to research options in any of
the above noted areas. However, the following recommendation is submitted
for Council consideration.
ATTACHMENT "B"
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 2, 1978
TO: File
FROM: Redevelopment Coordinator
SUBJECT: FIFTH YEAR BLOCK GRANT APPLICP_TIONW
A community meeting was held on September 21, 1978, at the Harding
Street Community Center.
Seven citizens attended and provided input as follows:
Mr. Sanchez
a. Alley improvements
1. Behind Pine School
2. Roosevelt from Palm to Oak
3. North of Elm
b. Fire protection program of some tvpe.
Julie Bagley (of the Chicano Federation)
a: Child care NOT Ihl Cotv1PL/ANICE bVIM C0CJN7X Sr,e r560)
p
b. Drug abuse 4NC�T /nI Cc��pG/��'� Gurr� Cbu�� sr•Qis-rE6Y ,
Thelma Hayes
a. Pedestrian safety i
Carrti pLi�S w t r4
1. Elm to Laguna
2. Ocean to Freeway
b. Standards for private voluntary improvement of pedestrian circulation
C. Overall pedestrian safety (circulation) program
d. Parking improvements - courtesy citation for blocking pedestrian ways
e. Rest areas incorporating bench, amenity, shelter
Harold Clarke
a. Front end money for project design (architectural)
1. Preliminary working drawings (loan) � QUE51a0)1%dL°�4
b. N/W corner State and Grand CFOV27'{E VEAR Pko�.RA �
1. Information stand
2. Directory for businesses
3. Transfer (NCTD) information
Jesus Mariz
a. Loan program - non owner occupied - , 3
d Y Fury oin<6 j -
r CQ►r �u,nclt
b. Alternative housing strategy
C. Crossing for school children at RR between Elm and Chestnut C�U����sc��►�
d. Neighborhood Community Center - Jefferson school area
1. Child care ( NO-r jN CDru�4�-MN:..6 L' c � CouNYY
2. Health & Social services outreach Forg4toO STRA-Mcy)
e. Contaminants in drainage channel south of. Elm (EAJFVRC6M6✓T FAdJBe-F'-"I)
Bert Freehof ,
a. Beach condition improvement (our oFS�Ys� �
( �'`� \
�'
b. Beach access study and implementation '�''
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 5631
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CALRSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING
FUNDING FOR FIFTH YEAR BLOCK GRANT PROJECTS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a
public nearing on December.5, 1978 for the purpose of considering
the City's fifth year Block Grant application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken all testimony into
account.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the program of funding
outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
as though fully set forth is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby
directed to forward the program outlined herein to the County
of San Diego for inclusion in the Fifth Year Urban County Block
Grant application.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of
December , 1978 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Packard, Skotnicki, Anear, Lewis and
Councilwoman Casler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
—&dz-4U-T�ENKRANZ, ALETHN L. Clerk
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
Exhib,-k "A" to Resolution 5631
The recommended fifth year program is as follows:
PHASE II VILLAGE AREA IMPROVEMENTS
Streets Attachment "D"
State (9501) 38,000# @ $1.25 $47,500
Sidewalks (10' wide/commercial) Attachment "E"
Along State between .
- Grand & Elm 420' (x2 for both sides) 240
x $11.00 ln. ft. (x2) $ g
- Cedar & Grand 130' (both sides) 2,860
x $11.00 ln. ft. (x2)
A portion below, south of Elm
100' (both sides x $11.00 2,200
x $11.00 ln. ft. (x2)
* Subtotal $14,300
Along Grand between . . .
State & Roosevelt 200' (both sides) x $11.00 ln. ft. (x2) $ 4,400
Along Elm between . . .
State & Roosevelt 200' (both sides) 4,400
x $11.00 ln. ft. (x2)
* Subtotal $ 8,800
Alleys & Parking Area Attachment "F"
Between State & R.R. & Grand & Elm
(20' wide) 400' x $17.00 ln. ft.
plus 1320 (concrete approach) $13,370
Parking Area 8,000
15% contingency $12,445
* improvement
subtotal $95,415
Commercial Structure Rehabilitation Pilot Program
This program is recommended to compliment the public
improvement projects noted above. The exact forr•+at of the
program is undetermined at this time. Staff is researching
various options available in structuring the program. Among
the options available:
a. Grants
b. SBA leveraged loans
C. Local leveraged loans
d. Direct interest subsidy
e. Direct local loans serviced by local lender
It is anticipated that the program would carry a maximum amount
of $5000 per business unless a leverage approach is ultimately
chosen. Staff will report to Council in January on the recommended
format of this program if Council grants tentative approval.
amount $30,000
Subtotal $125,415
10% admin.
costs 12,500
TOTAL
RECOMMENDED
REQUEST $137,415
I