Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 148-1978· RESOLUTION NO. 148-78 - CITY COUNCIL ,' CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE HCDA THREE-YEAR PLAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY APPLICATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development'Act of 1974 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 both provide for the distribution of Federal funds through the process of community development block grants; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco may cooperate and partici- pate with the County of San Mateo which has heretofore qualified as an Urban County under the Act; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Three Year ~Plan for fiscal years 1980, 1981, and 1982 which includes a community profile, summary of community 'development and housing needs and a comprehensive strategy; and WHEREAS, a Three Year Project Summary has been prepared proposing various HCDA funded projects; and WHEREAS, a Cooperation Agreement has been prepared which sets forth the formal relationship between the City and County to cooperate and co-partici- pate in the program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the-City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the HCDA Three-Year Plan (Exhibit "A"), Three-Year Project Summary (Exhibit "B") and Cooperation Agreement (Exhibit "C") are here- by adopted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute said Cooperation Agreement. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly intro- duced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regul ar by the following vote- meeting held on the 15th day of November · 1978, AYES: Councilmen Ro~nald G. Acosta~ Emanuele N. Damonte and Terry J. Mirri NOES: ABSTAINED: Coun_ci Iwoman Roberta Cerri Tegl ia - . - None - . Councilman.William A. Borba ABSENT' None U.S. DEPkRTMENT OF HOUSING ~r URBAN DEVELOPMENT 'COMlv~U~IITY~DEVELOPMENT ANIDR~ ./USING PLAN SUMMARY · COMMUNITY PROFILE 1. NAME OF AI)P4'~ ~IT City of Sou'tn San Francisco 2. AP~LICATION/G RANT NUMBER T .... ~ IOD OF' APPLICAltl LITY 4.~[~] Orlgihll (E.~), Thrw YNr~) ,m: JulY, 1979 To: June, 1982. ' COMMUNITY PROFILE: (~ide ~ brMf MrMt/~ M ~W Amendment Population Charac~teristics The 1970 U.S. Census indicated a total population in South San Francisco of 46,646. The'December, 1977, population was estimated to be 49,287 persons based on an assumed · number of 2.92 persons.per, household as opposed to 3.34 in 1970, Historically, the population increased at'the greatest rate between'1950 and 1970 when an average of 1,359 persons were added each year, During the 1970's the popula- tion begain leveling off when an average of 396 persons were being included each year to the total population although an average of 405 new dwelling'units were being constructed each year. This phenomenon of adding more dwelling units than persons each year was being caused by the significant decrease in persons per household which has been very characteristic of the 1970's. Ethnic Compos i ti on In 1970 the composition of ethnic groups in South San Francisco included the following- Ethnic Groups Number Per~enta~qe American Indian ~"' 233 0.5% Black 700 1.5% Orienta 1 1,399 ? 3.0% Spanish Surname/Mexican American 8,863 19.0% White 35,451 76.0% 46,646 100.0% A 1976 Community Profile and Housing Needs Study indicated the following changes since 1970 in ethnic composition in the HCDA Target Area' DATA SOURCES: 1970 U.S. Census Consolidated General Plan Update Information; June, 1978 Commu'nity Profile .and Housing Needs; August, 1976 Downtown South San Francisco Economic Analysis; July, 1978 C; lunity Profile and Housing Needs; August, 1976 Exhibit "A" --u'D ?062 Community 'Profile Page 2 HCDA Tar_qet Area Ethnic Composition Chanqes Group 1970 American Indian Black 1% Oriental 2% Spanish Surname/Mexican American 27% White 69% Other - 100% 1976 _ 1% 1% O~ 4% + 2% 37% +10% 55% -14% 2% + 2% 100% in conclusion, this survey indicated a 14% increase in ethnic groups in the HCDA 'Target Area between 1970 and 1976. -Income Characteristics . In 1970 the median fmaily income of all househ°lds in South San Francisco was S12,280. There were a total of 835 households or 2,358 persons having incomes below the poverty level. This represented 6.2% of all City households and 5.1% of all persons in 1970. In addition, there were approximately 1,333 families classified as very low income {50% of median income} and a total of about 3,776 families with lower incomes of median income).. In the 1976 survey of the HCDA Target Area, it revealed that 57% of all households surveyed {about 565 of 991 total) had incomes below the income limits for Section 8 rental assistance {Table 16). The survey also found that approximately 29% of all households were paying 25% of their income or greater on housing expenses (Table 12}. Aqes Age groups in South San Francisco show the following major trends during the 1970's; -The group showing the largest increase in persons is for the 25-34 age group. -The 5-14-year group showed the greatest decrease in persons. -Senior Citizens {65+) indicate a steady increase in population. -Teenagers are increasing numerically but are staying relatively the same percentage. Community Profile Page -3 -'-The following age group data is from the 1970 Census and a 1977 estimate: Estimate Changes in Age Groups in South San Francisco 1970-1977 1970 Census 1977 Estimates Aqe Groups Number Percentaqe .Number Percentaqe Under 5 4,070 8.7% 4,140 8.4% $- 14 10,.180 21.8% 9,217 18.7% 15- 24 7,933 17,0% 8,428 17.1% 25-34 6,154 13.2% 8,527 17.3% 35-44 6,353 13.6% 6,604 13. 45-54 6,084 13.0% 5,668 11.5% 55-64- · 3,542 7.6% 3,943 8.0% Economic Conditions 2,330 5.0% 2,'760 5.6% 46,646 100.0% 49 '287 100.0% . . In 1970therewere 19,496 persons of 16 years or older of South San Francisco residents Who were employed in various industries, positions and fields. This is very similar to the approximately 19,146+. employees who work in South San Francisc° according to the City Finance Department. Unemployment in the community has averaged approximately 6.7% during the past few years according to the State Employment Development Depart- ment. The Target Area Study showed that 72% of the head of households were gainfully employed and 28% were unemployed (T. his included students and other and is probably not consistent with the methodology used for State and National unemployment rates). Nearly a third of these residents were craftsmen (29%), followed next by laborers (17%), retired (14%), service (13%), professional (12%) and so on. Housing Conditions The 1970 Census identified 380 housing units lacking some or all plumbing facilities. The Target Area Survey indicated the fOllowing housing conditions: Standard 70% Rehabilitation Feasible 13% Rehabilitation Questionable 7% SubStandard 10% (Table 19) Community Profile 'Page 4 During 1977 the City Building Division issued building permits for a net increase of 210 dwelling units. There were permits for 76 single-family units, 159 multiple- 'family units and demolition permits for ll units. Already during the first nine months of 1978 permits have been issued for 514 new dwelling, units. .- 'Median sale prices of homes in 1977 was $65,000. Vacancy rates were 1,19%. Median rental costs were $234 in early 1978 and there were 396 assisted and public housing Units. (See Technical Supplement) Land Uses There are 591 acres of vacant land within the corporate limits of South San Francisco in June, 1978. Land uses in South San Francisco include the following' Residential 28,4% Commerc i al 6.8% Industrial 22.4% Public 10,0% Vacant ll .3% Streets 16.2% · .. Other 4.. 9% 100,0% U S O~PARTMENT OF HOUSIN hiD URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING PLAN SUMMARY · SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,----- AND HOUSING NEEDS '£1R'IOD OF ApiaLICABILITY .rom: July, 1979 To: June, 1982 1'. NAME 0F AI~PLICANT City of South San Francisco 2. APPLICATION/GI~ANT NUM~EIII 4. ~ Original (£v,~/Thr~ i~ Revision I:~ Amendrnem _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING NEEDS: (Provide · b~.ief na,'rerive in ecco/,den~e' with in~rructie~J/ A number of various interrelated community development and housing needs now exist throughout the community which must be addressed before they become any worse.. These generally include: The'need for redeveloping the public improvements neces- sary to revitalize outdated commercial and industrial areas; housing improvement and assistance needs; employment needs; traffic remedies; comprehensive planning solutions; new and improved public utilities and services; parking demands in the urban center; improvement of publ ic facilities for the senior citizens and other tel ated needs. .- ,.,. Neiqhborhoo,d Revitalization Needs The major revitalization needs of the HCDA Target Area neighborhood includes the fol 1 owing' 1. Revitalization of public improvements, elimination of handicapped barriers, addition of amenities, improved lighting and utilities and · new sidewalks and related improvements for Grand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard. These improvements are needed since this is the heart of the only neighborhood .shopping area which chiefly bene- fits low and moderate income households and senior citizens. If these needs are not addressed, the area will continue, to deteriorate, stores will close, undesirable uses will move into the area and it would cease to function as a viable neighborhood shopping area and meeting place. for senior citizens and nearby residents. The redeVelopment of blighted, vacant, deteriorated and inadequately '~ serviced industri.al and Commercial properties must be addressed. Many of the older industrial and manufacturing companies (such as Bethlehem Steel) used to provide a significant amount of employment for the citizens of South San Francisco and the entire peninsula area. Many lower income workers were once employed in these plants 'as laborers. Gradually, as these uses closed down or the operation substantially modified, the result was an increase in unemployment especially in the Target Area residential areas. Besides meeting the unemployment needs, 6 DATA SOURCES: 1969 Housing Element Proposed Updated 1979 Housing Element Community Profile and Housing Needs; August, 1976 -l~wntown South San Francisco Economic Analysis ~d Town Revitalization Plan Phases I, II, III · · , - x Forms HUD-70t 5.2 and HUD-70tB.2A..Which ere IbloIttte PI~e I Df 3 Plt~I HUD.yes3 iS-?sl Community Development and Housing Needs Page 2 improvements are needed to replace the existing infrastructure such as outmoded sewers, drainage-and so on. Also, financial incentives must be created to assist in making these properties., more financially feasible to redevelopers. 3, The need for more extens,ive and detailed comprehensive planning.and study is necessary before any major con~nitments from developers and the City can be made to support new improvements, Concentrated efforts must be made to analyze, coordinate and plan for the revitalization of these blighted areas. Community development planning is. necessary to incorporate the various viewpoints of the public and help to produce projects which provide greater benefits to the low, 'moderate income groups. Such planning will provide necessary conceptual plans, environmental analyses, financial impact reports and other studies which would meet many of the community's greatest needs. Without such studies, the community would not have adequate information to make the many long-term'decisions which will eventually have some significant impacts. CPmmunity-Wide Housin~ Needs As stated in the proposed 1979 Updated Housing Element,. some of the major housing problems in the community include: -Many households cannot afford to pay the high cost of housing expenses unless there are two household incomes, -There is readily identifiable housing deterioration of many older dwelling uni ts. -There is a need for more senior citizen and.affordable housing units for various groups. -The low vacancy rates restrict household mobility. -There will be amarket demand of up to 500-800 dwelling units a year on the average over the next five years. -Over 1,500 households are paying more than they can afford for housing. -Over 1,100 households appear to be in overcrowded conditions. -Over 500 households live in substandard or deteriorated dwelling units. Of all of the above needs, affordability seems to be the most widespread; and the rehabilitation of deteriorated units would have the greatest impact to provide affordable, standard housing without the need for renl~al or owner income supplements. Total estimated housing assistance needs in South San Francisco based on the County lousing Assistance Plan, the U.S. Census and recent studies and surveys by the ~lanning Division indicate the following needs' Community Development and Housing Needs Page -3 Total Housing Assistance Needs (Having 1 or more needs) Owners 307 Renters 2,.649 TOTAL 2,956 Elderly or', HandicapPed ~'~ · 0 ·° ~ 659 709 Large Family Family (4 or less) (5 or more) 201 56 1,809 lB1 2,010 237 Com~nunity-Wide Needs for Public Facilities The Senior Citizens Center (located at 230'Grand Avenue) may eventually need to be · ·remodeled, enlarged, replaced or otherwise improved to meet the senior citizens needs of the Target Area. This need should be further analyzed as a part of the comprehensive planning process for the revitalization of the Grand Avenue neighbor- hood area. In addition, there are perceived needs for a neighborhood teen center. However, there is no readily available information on their space needs, activities, location of a facility, or many other criteria which would be necessary before such a center could be established. Economic-Development Needs Major economic-related needs include: -New employment opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed. -Expanded retail and commercial uses to meet the neighborhood market demand. -The need for low interest financing for the rehabilitation of dilapidated and deteriorated structures and interest rate subsidies to aid in creating assessment districts which are more feasible for recipients. -Greater emphasis on marketing, advertising and promoting of revitalized areas to attract new consumers. -Greater diversity of commercial uses with an emphasis on restaurants and specialty shops along with neighborhood conVenience stores for senior and moderate income families. -The need to assemble land at reasonable costs for the most beneficial uses. DEPARTMENT O1: HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMOI~IITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING PI.AN SUMMARY COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY OF APPLICABILITY July, 1979 To: June, 1982 t. NAME OF APPLICANT City of South San Francisco · ;~. APPLICATION/GR&NT NUMBER 4. ~ Original (Ev~ ThrN Yemr~) [~ Revision ' - (Dated) r-i Amendment (Dared) . 5 COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY: (Provide a narrative in ~ccordance with insl~uctior~t During the past.couple of years the City of South San Francisco has been developing a comprehensive strategy to address the major community development and housing needs of the area. Since the needs have been identified as multi-faceted, interre-. lated, complex and constantly changing, an effective strategy has been developed to meet these varied components. Our approach has been to formulate a long-range, goal-and-objective-oriented approach which utilizes a flexible yet dynamic system of implementaion activities. The system has been analyzed to create an effective and cooperative approach based on recognized performance 'standards. Solutions must be ongoing and cumulative, recognizing that steady progress will be necessary to keep the momentum moving. ... A model of the strategy system has been prepared and is presented on the following .page. Major compenents of this system 'include: . -Major Needs -Citizen Input -Coordination -Coordinator -Plans -Funding AlternatiVes -Possi bl e Projects This model attempts to identify many of the .various "players", projects, funding sources, etc. It attempts to outline the basic system for the. next three to five years. MODEL OF CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO · COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY · AREA SYSTEM Citizen Input · Major Needs Strategy Coord ina ti on .Coordingating Agencies Plans Funding A1 ternati v'e~ Year Projects Advisory Committee Busi ness persons EconOmic Traffic Ci ti zens Property Owners Public Grand Housing Improvements Avenue · Others Other Neighborhood· Strategy Area City Council Redevelopment Agency Planning Planning Division Commission County HCDA Division Housing.. Authority Parking Authority HUD General Plan - Redevelopment Plan Specific Plans o · 3 Year HCDA Plan SBA Tax Increment ~Bonds Assessment Districts UDAG HCDA EDA Revenue-Sharing Gas Tax General FUnd SP Underground Cal Trans Other Federal, State and Local Grants Private Housing Public Comprehensive Grand Avenue Rehabilitation Housing Planning . . Major Off-Site Acquisition of Capital Improvements Blighted Buildings Improvements _ ,Needs A~sessment for' New, and Improved Public Facilities/ Parking Seniors and Teens Comprehensive Strategy Page 3 As shown., our comprehensive strategy has many complex components. However, the major coordinating method will be the establishment of a Neighborhood Strategy Area which .wi'Il tie together these various related, yet sometimes independent, components. The '--City Council, the Planning Commission and· the proposed Redevelopment Agency and their staff would become the major boards which will provide the policy guidance, set pri- orities, prepare plans and implement these projects.. It is important to note that our community strategy shows the relationship that HCDA will have with the many other sources of funds and projects. HCDA will provide much of the basic financing for studies, administration and coordination of the rest of the 'program and strategy. In addition, HCDA funds will be used to provide'funds to pro- vide some substantial physical results in the early stages of the entire effort. General Objectives The various objectives of our comprehensive Strategy include the following: 1. To rehabilitate deteriorating dwelling units of low and moderate income househol ds. 2. To eliminate slums and blight and provide improvements in a lower and moderate income shopping area. 3. To provide ongoing comprehensive planning services addressing the major housing and community development needs, problems and solutions. 4. To undertake redevelopment projects in blighted or deteriorating areas where a comprehensive approach is needed to reverse adverse conditions and including economic development effOrts to increase employment. 5. To develop an increased local capacity to plan, coordinate and. implement housing and cOmmunity development programs. 6. To increase citizen input with the objective of creating an expanded ad- visory committee containing a cross section of members of the residen- tial, commercial and industrial communities. 7. To create self-funded projects which utilize minimum public resources and maximize private investment. Reasons for Target Area Selection . . 1. Downtown/Grand Avenue Area - _ This area was selected because of the blighted condition, physical obso- lescence, economic decline, lack of handicapped facilities, )~roximity to low income boarding houses, its. use by lower income shoppers, lack of adequate utilities, its overall need for various improvements and the lo- cation of the Senior Citizen Center on Grand Avenue. 2. Peck's, Grand and Irish Town Residential Areas This area conl~ains the largest concentration of deteriorating dwelling units COmprehens i ve Strategy Page 4 in the community. It also contains a substantial number of lower and moderate income households, The area has existing public improvements including streets, sidewalks, utilities, etc~. Two parks were determined to be .needed in the Peck's area, and they are being installed during the fourth HCDA program year. ~. Bethl,ehem Stee] and Surroundin,q Areas This area contains a closed steel plant, blighted structUres and is physically obsolete. There are major opportunities on this site for redevelopment and employment for low and moderate income households. A redevelopment project could be formed, around this area and tax increments could be captured to fund various capital improvements and to-finance long-range rehabilitation of dwellings and provide expanded housing' opportunities in the older residen- tial areas. Priorities 'Major priorities of projects have been established for each major portion of the 'strategy. However, the major categories have not been.prioritized since each of them are of similar importance, and our long-range comprehensive strategy will emphasis all .categories equally. Needs Assessments - Major Public Comprehensive For Public Cateqories Housing Improvements Planning Facilities Economic Redevelopment Priorities- 1. New 1. Grand 1. Redevelop- 1 Senior 1. Employ- 1. Tax Construc- Avenue ment Plan Citizens ment Incre- tion ments 2. Housing 2. Parking 2. Land Use 2. Teens 2. Low 2. Land Use Rehab Alternatives Interest Controls Rehab Loans 3. Housing 3. Major 3. Tax Incre- 3. Others 3. EDA 3. Limited Assis- Traffic ment Study Acquisi- tance Cap Imp tion 4. Public .4. Indus- 4. EIR's 4. SBA 4. Other Housing trial Off-sites 5. Other 5. Utilities 5. Fiscal Housing Impact Projects Reports 5. Other 6, Public Facilities Study Comprehensive Strategy Page 5 Nei_qhborhood Revitalization Strategy Short-Term Objectives .' 1. To revitalize the public improvements, provide additional parking, rehabilitate the facades of deteriorating structures, provide amenities, resolve traffic problems and generally upgrade the Grand Avenue area from Airport Boulevard to Spruce Avenue by combining. HCDA, assessment district, bonds and other available funding sources. 2. To make short-term improvements to the industrial area public rights-of-way, including street widening, traffic signals, new and modified on-and-off ramps, and other short-term capital improvements, 3. TO meet the open space needs of the residential neighborhoOds (two neighbor- hood parks are being constructed during 1978-79). 4. TO prepare all basic planning studies necessary to implement various redevelop- ment activities. .. Lon,q-Ran.qe .Objectives' 1. To redevelop all blighting influences and construct parking structures in the downtown Grand Avenue. 2. To instal!._m_a_jor public improvements including an underpass at East Grand Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad and an overpass at Oyster Point Boulevard-and Highway lO1. 3. To adopt and implement a Redevelopment Plan for the entire strategy area. 4.. To install new utilities for the oldest portions of the project, 5. To attract major new developments including restaurants, offices, manu- facturing and other employment intensive uses, Community-Wide Housin,q Strate.qy 'The major components of'our housing program and the various funding sources include the following' l, Public Housing ~' 2. Rehabilitation Program 3. Assisted Programs · ~4..New Construction Tax Increment Fundin.~ Source HUD HCDA City X X Private X X X X X X Comprehensive Strategy Page 6 The major housing goals over the next three years include' ,Comp.lete an additional 40 units of public housing for a total of 80. -Complete rehabilitation of up to ten units a year. -Assist private deVelopers to process, construct and occupy, approximately 5.00-800 new conventionally financed units. -Work with the Building Division to develop a housing inspection program. -Obtain commitments for Section 8 (new, existing and rehabilitated) to be located throughoUt the City in accordance with the Housing Assistance Plan and Housing .Element. Our goal is to obtain a City percentage of assisted and public housing, units equal to the average number of such units per popu- lation as located throughout the County of San Mateo. Public Facility Strategy "The basic strategy is to identify the special needs of senior citizens and teens, develop a plan to provide expanded or new facilities, prepare an implementation program and obtain various financing alternatives to provide any needed new or improved facilities. · Economic Development Strate~qy The basic economic approach is to provide public dollars as "seed" money to attract and be an incentive for a maximum amount of private reinvestment and thereby make redevelopment more financially feasible, The City will also work with the various residential, commercial and industriai property owners to help make revitalization more viable because of "economies of scale" savings as a result of cooperative effects by private enterprise, Although an exact number of new employment opportunities is very difficult to estimate, as a result of HCDA funded projects it is possible to identify those projects which will have the greatest employment benefits especially for low and moderate income workers: 1..Construction-related jobs for housing rehabilitation including carpentry, roofing, electrical, plumbing and other rehabilitation work. Construction jobs for Grand Avenue improvements including masons, land- scapers, electricians, general laborers, graders, etc, 3, New positions in expanded commercial uses including restaurant work, office workers, manufacturing, warehousing, etc. 4, Other opportunities in related projects and businesses. Comprehensive Strategy Page 7 5.. Tax revenues from the City-, County, special districts, etc. on all new constructi on. 6. New sales taxes to the City. Neighborhood Strategy Area Implementation Schedule 1979-80 .... 1980-81 1981-82 1. Complete Phase II of Grand Avenue Improvement 1. Complete Phase III of Grand Avenue Improvement 1. Complete Phase IV of Grand Avenue Improve- ment. - Rehabilitate approxi- mately 8-10 housing uni ts 2. Begin preparing working drawings for major capital improvements 2. Begin first phase of major capital improve- ments in industrial area 3. Prepare and adopt EIR, -fiscal impact report and preliminary redevelop- ment plan 3. Begin setting up i n-house rehabi 1 i- tation capacity 3. Begin rehabilitation in-house 4. Begin remodeling deterio- --- rating building facades 5. Provide new assisted and public housing units 4. Provide additional pa rk i ng .. . 5. Adopt Redevelopment Plan 4. Complete short-'ter~ parking improvements 5.. Apply.for entitlement HCDA funding for South San Francisco 6. Begin providing new public 6. Prepare study on .parking public facility needs 6. ImPlement Redevelopment Plan ~ 7..Begin using two new neighborhood parks 7. Accelerate housing and commerci al rehabi 1 i ration 7, Sell bonds to implement major redevelopment pub- lic improvements 8. Begin expanding Rehabili- tation Program into a com- bined housing and commer- cial improvement'program 8, Add new and assisted 8, Add new, assisted and housing units senior citizen housing 9. Obtain commitments for SBA, 9, New Senior Citizen EDA, UDAG, Housing Programs housing and other similar programs for the Neighborhood Strategy Area. O. New Senior Citizen housing · NAME OF APPLICANT City of South San Francisco ;~. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER . (IMPORTANT: ,See imb~c tion~ complating ~i~ ~ction.] , . · l, Downtown Revitalization Project 2. Housing Improvement Program 3. Comprehensive Planning U.8. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPME'NT AND HOUSING PLAN SUMMARY THREE YEAR ~CT SUMMARY 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY F,~:July 1, 1979 To:June 30, 1982 PROJECT NUMBER (b) T E L R R F O A E W TR tu G N ,E (c) (all {el · '4. [~ OriginIJ {Eve~ ~e ym~z,l ~ A~~nt,. dlad TIMING AND ESTIMATED FUNDING ~/n ~~ of~) PROGRAM BENEFIT OF E~IMATED CDBG FUNDS YEAR I YEAR II YEAR III LOW/MOO OTHER LOW/MOO OTHER LOW/MOD OTHER BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT Ii) Ii) Es'ri. MATED OTHER FUNDS X X {k) (I) (m) X X 200 150 150 350 X X 50 50 75 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 mm! 6. SUBTOTALS $ 265 s 7' TOTAL COSTS TO BE PAIOWITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS .._8 E S.I'?_MA____.T E O EXP. ENDITURE$ UENEFITTIN~O LOW.A_N_O MODERATE .INCOME WE R$O.N9 /SUni O! C_~.~.uFjn. Z.E, ,, ,nd *1 U, LiNE Il AS A PERCENT OF LINE 7 I . . i ~ . .' _ .,r _ . .,, Pege 1 of 1 Pages 5 ~$ 215 .s 5 $ 240 _ _ 735,000 720,000 198. HUD.70~ Illllllllil TOWN OF ¢OLMA PROPOSED 1979-1982 NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA {Portions of Census Trac_'" ,,--)l, 6022j and' 6.0.23_).. - .,F MAP OF' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ~ . SAN MAT£O COUNTY. CALIFORNIA It' ~ '" '"'". - "' _..~ . N i -'7. -=Low Income-Persons .,-(.At of below Section 8 Income Limits) 57% · Minori. ty Group Residents 45% XSubstandard and Deteriorated Housing Uni ts 30.0% , Source: Community Profile and Housing Needs, August, 1976 U.S DEPARTMENT OF Hr, NG AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY · 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY FROM TO July l, 1979 June 30, 1982 B, NAME OF PROJECT Downtown Revi tal i zation B. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT City of South San Francisco, Planning Division DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 11. CENSUS TR/~CT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S) 1. I~,..,dlE OF APPLICANT City of South San Francisco 2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER · 6. PROJECT NUMBER REVIBIONo DATED AMENDMENT, DATED ' 7. ENvIRONMEhlTAL REVIEW ~,"'T'ATU~ '. B.'TELEPHONE NUMBER 873-8000 Extension 246 · Completion of the public improvements for the Grand Avenue neighborhood shopping area as shown in the South San Francisco Old Town Revitalization, Phase III - Schematic. Site Plan· HCDA funds will be combined with pilot project' funds, assessment district funds, private monies, revenue sharing and all other available resources to complete this project· Improvements will include the'~econfiguration of Grand Avenue from Spruce Avenue to Airport Boulevard and installation of street furniture and amenities for' senior citizens, low and moderate income residents and other neighborhood residents and shoppers, elimination of street barriers for the handicapped, landscaping, revised parking; sidewalks,' new utilities, improved lighting to improve security and safety, engineering administration and other related-costs and improvements· This project is located in the center of the Neighborhood Strategy Area and it will provide a focal ~ CheCk'if continued on addit/onal pag~($) and attach. · 6022 12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Completion of this four block improvement project in accordance with the recom.~endation · of the Old Town* Revitalization Plan. . I--I Check ff conrinued on additional paite($) and attach. 13. COB(:; COMPONENT ACTIVITIES IList component acrivirie= uJing nmrnes of activitim shown in Pert A. COST SUMMARY. Form HUD.7067.J CDBG LOW/MOD OTHER BENEFIT BENEFIT fa) lc) $ $ PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS (in ~ou&~-~f~ of $) OTHER AMOUNT SOURCE Id) $ Grand Avenue Improvements -4th Year Pilot Project -Sth; 6th and 7th Year -Revenue Sharing =Assessment Distri ct :. '. 154 4th Year HCDA 5OO 150 200+ Property (~,ners -~4. Tota~ $ 500 $ $ 504 . 15. To~l ~ To Be Paid With Communi~ Dtvelopment Bilk Grant Funds (~m ofCo/um~ b ~dc) - _ ]'T [] ! I Project Summary Applicant' City of South San Francisco From July l, 1979 to June 30, 1982 Name of Project- Downtown Revitalization Page 2 point for other needed impPovements in this area. A majority of the shoppers' have been identified as low or moderate income according to the Downtown Eco- - _ nomic AnQlysis, July, 1978. If possible, the.City proposes to borrow the next three years of HCDA funds for this project and pay it off with the subsequent three years of entitlement f~unds. This would result in a substantial reduction of total project costs be- cause of inflation of labor, materials and financing. It would also permit the improvements to be installed all at once rather than in various phases thereby completing' the project in a more coordinated manner, Funding the remaining phases .in the first year.rather than spreading it out over three years would also reduce the assessments which individual property owners will be paying to supplement and finance the remaining project costs. FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HC NG AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM I. I~,.,.~IE OF APPLICANT .City of South San Francisco 2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMIEpI' -. . B. B. PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT SUMMARY 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY TO July 1, 1979 June 30, 1982 NAME OF PROJECT Housing Improvement Program ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT City of South San Francisco, Planning Division DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT RIEVISION. DATED AMENDMENT, DATED 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ~EVIE)9 ~'rATI,,~ O.' TK LE P HeNE 'N'Uu I'E ~ - 873-8000, Extension 246 Continuation of the Housing Improvement Program began during the second HCDA year. This project provides financing for'low and moderate income households and senior citizens. The county Staff will continue administering the program using County guidelines with any specific provisions for South.San Francisco. The City will con- tinue providing liaison services between the-Coun{y and residents. Major provisions co program will include the provisions for deferring loans and low and moderate income households. In addition a ~axim~n of past Housing Improvement Program .funds will be earmarked for are on very low or fixed incomes and have a very serious By the. third year it is expected that the City will establish its own rehabilitation staff as part of' the proposed Redevelopment Agency. During fiscal year 1980 it is p~ottpsqd.tha.t; the Ci,ty. Sta. ff will use .approximately 10-20..~ of ~ IL~ [.-nectc' ifconzlnueo on eddiUona/pageFs) and attacl~. '11: CENSUSTRACTISJ/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S) 602l and -6022 · 12.ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTs This additional amount of financing will be combined with the previous HCDA Housing financing and'Redevelopment Tax.Increment Financing. Approximately 8-10 units a year will be rehabilitated during the next three years and it will increase substan- tially thereafter. of the South San Francis some limited grants for 10% of all. proposed and City'wide residents who physical housing need. El Check if continued on addiUona/ page[s) and artach. 13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS (in ~~x orS) - IList c~p~ent ~tivitiez uling names of ~tJviti~ sho~ CDBG O~ER in ~A, ~STSUMMARY, Fo~ HUD.7~7.) LOW/MOD OTHER AMOUNT' SOURCE BENEFIT BENEFIT Ia/ le/ lc/ Id/ $ $ · Housing, Mixed Use and Commercial Improvement Project 150 25 .. 14. Totals $ 150' $ 25 $ ~~- · 15. Total Cost~ To Be Paid With Community Development Block Grant Fund~ (gum ofCo/urnr~b end'c) $175,000 . . ~Repleo~ 'r-.m'm HUD-7015.1'. which im Or. elate Page 1 of 2 pages m ~ · 11 ~!lr Project Summary Applicant: City of South San Francisco From July 1,. 1979 to June 30, 1982 Name of Project: Housing Improvement Program Page 2 these funds to provide staff assistance for mixed-Ose and 'non-residential pro- perry owners to apply for Section 312, SBA or other low interest loan pro§r~s. Eventually, the City may formulate its own rehabilitation financing program.. using tax increments from the proposed redevelopment project. Rehabilitation of all types of structures would become a major emphasis in the Neighborhood Strategy Area during the 1980's and beyond. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H( NG AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY · 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY . FROM TO July 1, 1979 June 30, 1982 B. NAME OF PROJECT Comprehensive Planning 8. 10. 3, 1. h~.,,dE OF APPLICANT -CiiLv of South San Francisco 2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMIER ~l IqEVISlON. DATED ~ AMENDMENTaD~TED 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. E~VlaONMENTA.L ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT City.of South San Francisco, Planning Di-vis~on DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 9.'TELEPHONE NUI.4~ER ' ' 873-8000, extension 246 This project includes various comprehensive planning-activities related to the HCDA program.including special studies for the Neighborhood Strategy Area and the corres- ponding proposed Redevelopment Project. Comprehensive planning activities will include financing a portion or all of such studies as .a Tax Increment Financing Study, En- Vironmental Impact Report(s), Fiscal/Feasibil'ity Study, alternative detailed land use studies, public facilities study, etc. Administration of these studies and general planning and administration .of the overall HCDA program would come out of this project fund. Some consultant services such as redevelopment legal serviCes, fiscal and en- vironmental specailists may be necessary to carry out some of these planning activities. It is anticipated that private property owners would combine efforts to pay for the [][]( Check' if continued on additional page(s) and attach. 11. CENSUS TRACTIS)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S) ; 6021, 6022 and 6023 · , . 12. ANTICIPATE~) ACCOMPLISHMENTS · 1. 0verall planning functions for entire HCDA program; 2. Tax Increment. feasibility study; E[R for Redevelopment Project; Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan; Preparation of a Public Facilities Other related studies, reports and needs analysis; and planning functions. Check if con tinued on additional parers) and attach. 13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES (List component activities using names of activitie~ shown in Parr A, COST SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067.) PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS (in ~o,~m~s of $/ CDBG OTHER LOW/MOD OTHER AMOUNT BENEFIT BENEFIT (b) (C/ '(ali SOURCE S '$ S Comprehensive Planning 45 15 14. Totals $ 45 S 15 $ ~ 1.5. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Block Grant Funds (Su~n of Colurnr~b antic) $ 60,000 __ ~ flepleoes~ HUD-7015.1. which il Obsolete Page 1 of 2 pales 'Uo-~6~ Project Summary .Applicant: City of South San Francisco From July l, 1979 to June 30, 1982 Name of Project: Comprehensive Planning Page 2 major portions of any EIR's, Fiscal Impact Reports, etc. HCDA funds would provide any additional amount necessary to complete or make these studies more financially feasible. I~$. DEI~ARTMEN1~ OF HO~. ,G AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL. COMMUI~tTY DEVELOPMENT PRO(~RAM Fl: ~ _uly 1, 1979 -.3 1. OF APPLICANT City of South San Fcancisco COST:SUMMARY 4. June 30, 1982 PART ~' SUMMARY OF RR~RAM ACTIVITY (Impo~r: ~ Jn~c~s ~f~ claiming ~ui~tion of Red Pro~ Disposition Public Facilities and Improvements - Senior Centers Parks, Playgrounds and Other Recreationai Facilities · Centers for the Handicapped · Neighborhood Facilities Solid Waste Disposal Facilities' · Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment Parking Facilities Public Utilities, Other Than Water and Sewer Facilities . Street Improvements ' Water and S~wer Facilities m. Foundations and Platforms for Air Rights Sites Pedestrian Malls and Walkways Flood and Drainage Facilities Specially Authorized Public Facilities and Improvements (/./~) 500,000 (1) .$ 12) (3) :4 ,' 6 Clearance Activities - Public Services Interim A~i~tence "7 --- -CompleTion o/l~revlou~ty'-ApproveO'ClTl~n'Rene~arl~ro]ects ...... FI~ Fm'm HUD-?OZS.6. which i, ObSOlete. . I've l 6f4 p~es. HUD-7067 . 12 b 15 16 17 Relocation Payments and Ataiitance AMOUNT Payments for Lo~s of Rental Income Removal' of Architectural Barriers Specially Authorized A~istance to Privately Owned Utilities ! Rehabilitation and pre~rvation Activiti~ · . Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures Public Housing Modernization Rehabilitation of Private Properti~ Code Enforcement Historic Preservation SPeCially Authorized Economic D~velopmen! Activiti. - Acquisition for Economic' Development · . Public Facilities and Improvement~ for Economic Development · . Commercial and Industrial Facilities ~pecial Activitie~ By Local Development Corporations, Etc. (Li~t) . SUBTOTAL 'Planning and Urban Environmental Design (See Parr B of thi# form.) Development of a C~mprehemive Community Development Plan Development of a Policy-Planning-Management Capacity Specially Authorized Comprehensive Planning Activities General Administration (From Pert C, Line 6) Contingencies and/or Local Option Activities (Not to exceed lO~ of ~'nount mown in Parr D, Line I) .' TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS (,g~m of Lin~ 15 through 18) · · ' l~age 2,of 4 pases · · 175,000 , 60,000 $735,000 t $ HU i~-7~'j~7 PART B. DE alpTION OF: PLANNING AND URBAN EN¥1FIONM NTAL DEl, lON CO~T$ These coSts are explained in the Comprehensive Planning Project Summary. Most of these costs will be used to finance a portion of the special studies related to the Neighbor- hood Strategy Area or the proposed Redevelopment Porject. In addition the ovgrall '-'~lanning and administration for the entire HCDA program would be funded from these :osts. Specific studies would probably include a tax ~ncrement feasibility study, 'IR's, preparation and adoption of a Redevelopment Plad., preparation and adoption of .a .Redevelopment Plan, preparation of a public facilities: needs analysis and other re- . ports and planning functions. [~ Check ff continued on eddition~lpaR($} ' PART C. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION COSTS Line (~ inst~ctions for d~r/prions of ~minis~ti~ ~Uvi~ ~fo~ Ge~r~ Mana~ment, Oversi~t a~ C~rdination · Indir~ ~s (Allowable ff ~ar~ puget ~ a ~st all~ti~ plan) ~tizen Pa~icipation .'2 5 [ Environmental Studies Necessary to Comply With Environmental Regulations $ $ Other fL/st) ,$ Total General Administratic~n Cc~ts (Sum of Line~ I through 5) .. , Page3of 4pa~s $ $ HUD,-~O67 16-78! 'r 3 PART D. BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM COSTS Entitlement Amount Le~: Rel~ymen! of Urban Rengw~I/NDP Loans , {Iran! Wiffiheld for Repeymen! of HUD-Gu~'~t~ Lo~n $ · · Gran! Amount For Program Activities (Line I minuJ sum o! Line,s 2 and3) . . · Program Income Surplus From Urban Renewal/NDP Settlement · ~ · Loan Proceeds Reprogrammed Unobligated Funds From Prior Program Year (Attach TOTAL BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM costs (Sum of Lines 4 thru 8) PART E. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM BENEFIT · 'Costs Subject to Progran~ Benefit Rules '. ~'' ' Exl:~nditur~ Principally Benefitting Lo~- and Moderete-lncome Per~.ons Line 2 ~ a Percent of Line 1 Other Expenditures Line 4 as a Percent of Line 1 t . , $ .$ $ $ '$ AMOUNT 735,000 720,000 98 ~ FOR H~ L,~E ONLY % % 'Page 4 of 2[ pages ! COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEI-~NT, entered into this day of , 197'~', between the C6UMTY OF SiN )t~TEo, apoiitical subdivision of'the Stat~ of California, hereinafter referred to as "County" and the CITY OF , a duly incorporated city within the County of San l-~ateo, hereinafter referred to as "City", WITNESS ETH: WHEREAS., the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public La-.- 93-383, enacted. ~ugust 22, 1974, and the Housing and Co--unity Developr?_nt _~.~ .. · . . of 1977, Public Law 95-128, enacted October 12, 1977, both provide for the distribution of federal funds through the process of community development block grants, to eligible public entities; and WHE~ZAS, those public entities which are eligible to receive said fu.~.~> are cities with a population in excess of 50,000, 'hold harmless' public entities, and urban counties; and ~r~RE.~3, public entities that do not othe~,~ise come within the of an eligible public agency may cooperate and participate with an eli=~ible public entity such as an urban county; and ~'THEPd~AS, the County of San Mateo has heretofore qualified as am urban county under the Act, the County again solicits the cooperation and co-partici- pation of public entities such as City in its application for federal assistance under the Act for the fifth, sixth and seventh years (FY 1~80, 198! and Exhibit "C" ~tEREAS, City, having a populatiom of less than 50,000 desires to cooperate and co-participate with County in this venture; and WHEREAS, a Cooperation Agreement by and between City and County est~!ishes the formal relationship to cooperate and co-participate and is specifically authorized under, the provisions of Government Code Sections 6502 and 26227; and · WHERE~AS, County is~in receipt of a communication'from the Umited Sta~s Department of Housing and Urban Development, hereinafter referred to a~ = , . ~with regard to the requisites which must be included in said Cooperation Agre_~- ment and which further stated that the same must be completed amd submitted by November 2l, l~78; amd WHEREAS, on , City did, by an official act or pro- nouncement,'originally express its intent and desire to cooperate and par~icl- . ~ pate with -County in its Plan application and to engage in housing and co~anity development activities within its incorporated limits thereunder; an~ WHEREA~.~, City now desires-to enter into the instant Cooperation Agremmem~ ~with the County of San Mateo so that it may qualify,, under applicable pro~sions ~f the Ac~ amd P~ regulations, as co-participant with County in eligible ~activities under the Act: NOW, T~.RM~=MOP~, IN CONSIDERATION OF T}r~ FOREGOING, the parties h~r~to agree as fo!low~: 1. Pur?os~. This agreement is for the purpose of enabling the Coumty and the City ~o cooperate in undertaking, or assisting in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing. . (FY 1980,1981 ~nd t582) 2. Term. The term of this agreement shall be zor programyears and may be extended upon mutual agreement of the parties for pariods of cn~ or -2- more programyears subject to the provisions of the Act as it currently exists or may subsequently be amended, and further subject to the lawful regulations of HUD, and subject to the mutual agreement of the parties with regard to the . content of future Plan applications by County. 3. Applicant's R~sponsibility. County, as applicant, has the ult~:e responsibility, under the Act, and in the view of HUD, for analysis of needs, setting of objectives, development of community development and housing assistance plans, and the one year community development program~ and for prc-- viding assurances or certifications. Therefore, County requires of City, ~_~.d City agrees to strict adherence to the Plan as approved, and to all assurances and certifications provided. 4. Affirmative Action. Under County's ultimate supervision and respo~si- _ o bility, city.~oyenants and agrees that it will' abide by 'and enforce all applicable affirmative action requirements including, but no~ limited to, Executive Order i!246,.the.Equal Employment Opportunities Act, the San Mmteo .County Affirmative Action Plan and local affirmative action plans. 51. County'S'Responsibility to .City. In addition ~to t~e foregoing obliga- tions, Co~ty agrees: A. County shall, in preparing future plans under the Act, solicit to the extent allowed by the Act and all lawful HL~ regulations, City's p~tici- · .pation in the development of such future plans which refer to City's acti-~_:ias under, the Act. B. In accordance with instructions from HUD, County agrees to peak--_it City to carry out the essential community development and housing assist~e activities provided for in the application and in future plans. C. County agrees to distribute funding it receives from its cur=emi Plan application and in future plans, in accordance with the ter~s and -3- therein contained, or in accordance with such terms and conditions as require~ by the Act or HUD. · 6. City's ResPonsibilities to County. In addition to the f0re~0inK obligations- . A. .City agrees to expend any funds received by virtue of any of County's' plans only in accordance with the terms-and conditions'state~ therein, or as amended by HUD. B. City agrees to cooperate with County, as it has heretofore, im the development of future plan applications for funds under the Act, %~th regard to housing and community development actiVities to be continued or. undertaken by City'within its boundaries. 7." Headings'.. The headings in thisl document are merely for the convenience . . . . of the parties,~ and do not"form a mate~iai part of this docUment. HeaLings shall Jot be 'considered in the const, ruction of this document. . . 8. Te_~mination. This agreement may be terminated by the County if ~ 'determines that all of City's activities are 'plainly inappropriate' under, the Act. This agream, ent may also be terminated by either party, upon the lawful completicn by City of its housing and communitydevelopment activities under any particular application by County, upon ~JD approval of said completion, by thirty days' written notice to the other party. However, termination for any cause or by any method shall take effect only at the end of the pregram year for which an application has been submitted to HUD. 9. ~.finor Amendments. to the Agreement. Should it become necessary to change the language of this agreement to meet HUD approval, withoutma~mno'-' ~ ma~or changes and without altering the intent of the agreement, such chamges may be made administratively by the ~ of . -4- Ail remaining provisions of said agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the term provided herein. , Executed on the day and year. first above written in the City of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO By CI%~Y OF By ATTEST: