Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2004 > March 23, 2004
Shortcuts
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Downtown
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Public Notices
CDCC Minutes, March 23, 2004
  1. Call to Order:

    Chairperson Jaramillo called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM.

  2. Roll Call

    Members Present:

    Barbara Bambrook
    Robert Elliott
    Judy Givens
    Kitty Jaramillo
    Denise Jensen-Purser
    Barbara Leon
    John Strub
    Irene Moreno-Sandy
    Jo Ann Brannock, Ph.D.

    Staff Present:

    Linda R. Morad, Housing Programs Supervisor
    Sylvia M. Chavez, Housing Programs Assistant
    Mike Austin, Building Inspector
    Guillermina Torrico, Clerical Assistant III

    Members Absent:

    None

  3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

    MOTION was made, seconded and CARRIED by members present to approve the Minutes of March 8, 2004.

  4. 2004-05 City Department Presentations

    Chairperson Jaramillo welcomed City Staff and explained that the presentations should be limited to ten minutes, with five minutes presenting their proposal and the additional five minutes allotted for a question/answer session with the Committee. She asked that they introduce themselves before beginning their presentation.

    Presentations began at 6:39PM.

    Applicant: Community Services Department
    Project: Fullerton Community Centers
    Request: $105,580

    Presenting for Community Services was Pat Trotter, Manager of Human Services who gave a PowerPoint Presentation on the Garnet and Valencia Community Centers. Funding would allow both Garnet and Valencia Community Centers to operate 40 hours per week for a full year with a Community Services Coordinator at each site.

    Ms. Trotter reviewed the following topics:

    Services provided by staff to 2,400 unduplicated clients: Outreach, needs assessment, information/referrals, translation, forms assistance, community events, and center management.

    Services provided by non-profit agencies that use their centers to 1,475 unduplicated clients: Counseling, after-school activities, tutoring, mediation services, health education, health services, leadership development, employment counseling, and emergency assistance.

    The names and functions of non-profit agencies that make these centers more functional and the mutual benefit of having them as part of their centers.

    Quality-of-life issues affecting residents in the two areas surrounding the communities: drugs, vandalism, trash, and traffic safety and how the centers address these issues by youth, children, and adult education.

    Ms. Trotter shared the plans for replacing the blighted area near the Garnet Center with a community park that would include a playground, picnic areas, and a mural. The park design includes landscaping, turf, irrigation, and parking areas. Ms. Trotter stated that this park is the proposed plan submitted to the State for funding and is Community Services way of addressing the quality-of-life issues in these areas. She noted that a key area in this park will be a mural similar to the one at the Children Museum Plaza that will be designed by the children in the neighborhood assisted by professional muralists.

    Performance measures for 2002-2003: number of participants (duplicated numbers) were achieved with the help of non-profit agency partners:

    Center Coordination 6,675
    Youth Services 7,266
    Health and Wellness 4,111
    Volunteers unduplicated 101
    Volunteer Hours1,474

    Ms. Trotter invited two members of the community to speak and share their testimonials as samples of success stories at each of the two centers.

    Amalia Rivera, a seven-year member of the Valencia Community Center and currently a member of the Valencia Task Force spoke on her experience at the Valencia Community Center and Rosemary Castro, Valencia Task Force Director, translated Ms. Riveras statements.

    She stated that she had the opportunity to take leadership training classes which have provided motivation and personal growth to her and her family. Ms. Rivera explained that many people and parents in the community have participated in courses at the center, and as a result, there is great personal and community development.

    She stated that through this involvement there is increased awareness on how funding for these centers is obtained and how important it is to come and participate in meetings. She expressed to the Committee how rewarding and beautiful it is to be involved in the community and to see how much the funding for these services and projects is truly needed to help the community. She thanked the Committee by stating that she appreciates the support.

    Tom Nixon spoke on behalf of the Garnet Community Center. Mr. Nixon introduced himself as the director of the non-profit, faith-based Solidarity group from the Garnet Community Center. Mr. Nixon stated that they currently serve 250 children but are aware that many more in that community have a need.

    Mr. Nixon provided examples of the services at their center: Tutoring, financial classes for parents, arts and crafts classes, and sports. He stated that to have a park in the area surrounding the center would be ideal since currently this area is an extremely blighted and dangerous place for the many children who come to their center.

    Mr. Nixon concluded his presentation by saying that in just a year and a half they have seen much success. Specifically, they are turning out children that are doing better in school and children for whose first language was not English, learning the language much faster.

    Ms. Trotter expressed that without volunteers like Mr. Nixon and Ms. Rivera and the many other volunteers, the centers would not be able to stay open. She stated that although funding given to this project is a major portion of CDBG allocations and they are appreciative, they depend on the graces of the volunteers and non-profits to remain vital in the community.

    Q&A:

    Q: Committee Member Bambrook questioned the number of clients served totaling to $4,000 per-client cost, based on the request and the number served as a high amount.

    A: Ms. Trotter stated that the funds are not just for staff but also for the whole operation of the facility, staff, and utilities. She also stated that the number of clients served includes the many more served by the non-profit agencies for which there is no cost.

    Q: Committee Member Brannock asked what the first bullet in her Success Stories slide referred to: Youth in Action.

    A: Ms. Trotter explained that the Youth in Action group is facilitated by a grant from the Orange County Human Relations and other agencies. They are a group of young people that meet regularly at the Valencia Center whose concept is the same as the Valencia Task Force group. These young people learn leadership skills and community involvement. They have been very active in identifying and addressing the needs in their communities, specifically alcohol and tobacco. The group has been successful and has won recognition on a county-basis. The members range from 12 to 17 years of age and come from Fullerton schools.

    Q: Chairperson Jaramillo asked for the location of the new park and for the funding source.

    A: Ms. Trotter stated that funding for the park was submitted to the State. She described the location as the abandoned pool property from the Garnet Homeowners Association (who are giving the monies to the Redevelopment Agency so the funds can be used as grant funds). It is 20 feet away from the Garnet Center.

    Q: Committee Member Elliott asked at what stage of the application process was the request for park funding.

    A: Ms. Trotter explained that she felt a strong application was submitted for State funding to build this park and it is currently being reviewed with an answer expected back by the end of April 2004.

    Applicant: Community Services Department
    Project: Fullerton Tool Bank
    Request: $50,990

    Presenting the Tool Bank project was Eloisa Espinoza, Community Center Supervisor for Community Services Department. Ms. Espinoza distributed the project budget to the Committee.

    Ms. Espinoza stated that the Tool Bank is one of the many amenities at Lemon Park and has been serving the community for twenty five years. She stated that the Tool Banks mission is to promote home improvement, neighborhood pride, and home safety.

    She advised that the Tool Bank provides a variety of tools and equipment to residents living in the HCD-eligible neighborhoods at no charge. Examples of equipment offered include hand and power tools, power mowers, edgers, blowers, drain cleaners, ladders, roto tillers, etc. She stated that their program promotes and encourages the homeowners' responsibility to keep their homes and lawns clean and safe and at the same time it maintains or increases their property value.

    Ms. Espinoza explained that they try to accommodate the needs of older residents and those without transportation by dropping off and picking up equipment using the Tool Bank truck. This truck is also used to transport equipment that needs fixing.

    She indicated that Jose Diaz is the Tool Bank representative. His responsibilities include customer service, monitoring the check out and return system, offering instruction to the borrowers, purchasing new equipment, and making minor repairs. He also maintains equipment inventory and the monthly statistic report.

    Ms. Espinoza stated that they take advantage of volunteers who give of their expertise to provide "How To" workshops. Examples of the workshops provided include: Instruction on wall plastering and repair, tile setting, concrete, brick laying, roof repair and installation, sprinkler installation, etc. She announced that a workshop on concrete-laying will be held in May 2004.

    Ms. Espinoza provided the tool banks hours as follows: Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 8am 12pm; Friday and Saturdays 8am 4pm. She stated that the Tool Bank has a long history in this community and that 1,100 tools were provided to 688 duplicated residents during July 2003 to February 2004.

    Q: Committee Member Bambrook asked if the $4,570 is solely to maintain one vehicle.

    A: Ms. Espinoza stated that yes it is for the truck maintenance, fuel, and for replacement of the truck.

    Q: Committee Member Brannock asked regarding the high cost of computer.

    A: Ms. Espinoza stated that yes it is for the computer maintenance and includes the MIS department allocation.

    - Committee Member Jensen-Purser added that this also included network support included for maintenance.

    - Susan Hunt, Director of Community Service interjected that this, as well as the truck costs are prorated across several years to include purchase, maintenance, and replacement.

    Q: Committee Members Strub asked if the amount included cost to replace the computer and if the computer was a lap top.

    A: Ms. Espinoza stated that it includes replacement cost and the computers are now being replaced every three years. She stated that the computer is a desktop computer and it is not connected to the network.

    Q: Committee Members Bambrook asked if they verify that those who borrow tools do not use them for business purposes.

    A: Ms. Espinoza stated that their department is not staffed/equipped to go out and verify this, but users are advised that they are not to do this on the application.

    Q: Committee Member Brannock asked regarding the Citys liability.

    A: Ms. Espinoza stated that a release of liability in included in the application. They provide detailed instruction, and they also provide safety supplies, i.e. safety goggles.

    Susan Hunt, Director of Community Services introduced herself and advised that she supported the two prior presentations and thanked the Committee for their time.

    Applicant: Engineering
    Project: Public Works Facilities
    Request: $200,000

    Yelena Voronel, Sr. Civil Engineer presented the Public Works Facilities project. She stated that their request was for installation of a traffic signal at Highland Avenue and Valencia Drive and an illuminated cross walk at Elm and Highland.

    She informed the Committee that these Projects were originally going to be part of Section 108 in which $7,500,000 were approved. However, at that time, these two improvements were not added to the Richman Park Neighborhood enhancements. Thereafter, the Valencia Task Force has insisted and communicated to City staff that the situation at these two areas is very dangerous. She advised that the Engineering Department conducted a study at these two areas but at that time, the study did not warrant these installations. Ms. Voronel stated that many times the Police Department is not aware of the many accidents.

    Ms. Voronel advised that a Valencia Task Force representative would speak on the conditions of these intersections and give an update on the number of signatures obtained on the petition for these installations.

    Discussion: >

    Committee Member Elliott asked Ms. Voronel to clarify the amount of their request. Ms. Voronel stated that their request for $200,000 which includes installation of traffic signal and interconnect conduit and would help complete the illuminated crosswalk in pavement at Elm and Highland. She explained that the way the illuminated crosswalk works is that when pedestrians push the button, the lights turn on the street crosswalk.

    Committee Member Brannock asked how many signatures have been obtained. Debbie Phares (Orange County Congregation Community Organizations) responded that the actual number is uncertain at this time. She stated that the signatures are still being collected. Ms. Phares stated that the specific number would not be obtained until April.

    Committee Member Strub asked if the Engineering study had found that these intersections did not warrant traffic signal. Ms. Voronel stated that this was correct and that due to these findings, these projects were not included in Section 108. However, Engineering was asked to pay attention to these intersections so many times that they have now decided to revisit the issue. Ms. Voronel explained that many times the accidents are not formally reported to the Police Department. She stated that this is a very hot issue with the community and is their greatest interest. Ms. Voronel stated that another Engineering study is in process.

    Committee Member Strub asked if this second study would be finalized before the Committee makes their recommendations. Ms. Voronel said that the study will be presented to the Traffic Commission and to City Council for final approval at the end of April.

    Ms. Morad advised that the study will be completed before the Richman Community Meeting takes place but not prior to the date the Committee makes the funding recommendations.

    Committee Member Leon questioned how it could be possible that a City department not know about this problem. Ms. Morad advised that the study conducted by Engineering did not warrant signals based on Traffic Engineerings review. Ms. Morad informed that there are certain guidelines that have to be abided. But realistically, if you drive by, there is always foot traffic. Ms. Morad explained that Engineering did not want to overburden the intersection with too many traffic signals and a second study would be conducted.

    Committee Member Leon asked that the Committee know the studys findings before they make their funding recommendations. Ms. Morad stated that this would not be possible since the Committee recommendations are scheduled for March 29, 2004 and the study would not be finished. Committee Member Brannock responded that the recommendations to fund would then be premature.

    Ms. Morad explained that logically, they should first go in to make these installations before the Section 108 renovations are made since then they would have to go back and tear up the streets. Committee Member Jensen-Purser asked what if the Committee found a better place to put the $200,000. Ms. Morad reminded them that additional money is available this year but is not guaranteed to be there next year. She reminded them that $700,000 was available because the Section 108 was not yet funded.

    To clarify the decision of the study, Ms. Morad explained that the Police Department warned about how at a 4-way stop everybody stops and people are allowed to cross vs. at a traffic signal light, the yellow light will cause speeding and pedestrians stepping off the curb at other end, which might lead to accidents.

    Ms. Voronel stated that the first study did not meet the guidelines only by a slight margin and that the study was pretty much an engineering-based study vs. a realistic one experienced by the pedestrians each day.

    Committee Member Jensen-Purser expressed a concern about the heavy foot traffic being affected by the speed that cars travel through when there is a signal. Committee Member Strub asked if any of the businesses would change with Section 108 and Ms. Morad stated that those were commercial properties and would not change.

    Committee Member Leon expressed concern over the obligated funds to Code Enforcement and now over funding a project that was not backed up by a study and how this would affect the Committees credibility to those needy groups that come to them to seek funding.

    Committee Member Jensen-Purser asked the Valencia Task Force representative who had been waiting to present why he felt the traffic signal would help as opposed to having the four-way stop.

    Jose Dominguez spoke on behalf of the Valencia Task Force and Rosemary Castro, Human Services Coordinator, translated Mr. Dominguez statements. He explained that after 40 years of living on Highland Avenue he has seen many good and bad changes that have contributed to the problem with the traffic flow. He attributes the building of the bridge as the greatest contributor to the problem. A lot of cars do not respect the stop sign or the speed limit and pedestrians cannot cross the street. He stated that the signal would help pedestrians when their turn to cross comes up by giving them more time to get to the other side. He stated that current day, especially between 3-4 pm, it is practically impossible to cross the street because even though there is a four-way stop, the cars do not yield to pedestrians. They stop and take turn with the cars, but not the pedestrians. He stated that sometimes there are 15-20 cars backed up. He says that every time pedestrians walk off the curb they have to maneuver themselves quickly across the street to dodge the cars.

    Mr. Dominguez stated that he does believe that the green, yellow, and red lights would slow down the speeders because it is expected that people would respect the law. With the signal there would be more time to cross the street.

    Committee Member Strub asked if this street would become a more common pass-through once a signal is installed. He also asked if anything else, such as speed bumps, could be installed.

    Ms. Voronel explained that the City does not install speed bumps but can install traffic signs announcing the signal. Ms. Voronel expressed worry over the discussions at this meeting since she did not expect these types of concerns over a request that was mainly for the safety of the community. She stated that the traffic signal would provide right of way so that a number of cars could go through and then provide a turn for pedestrians. Ms. Voronel stated that this is such an important issue for the community and $7,500,000 was agreed upon to improve their quality of life and safety. This was the logical time to correct the problem if the study shows a need. She asked that the Committee please listen to the community since they think it is very important. Ms. Voronel stated that this issue needs to be revisited because perhaps the study was done prior to the building of the bridge.

    Chairperson Jaramillo interrupted the discussions and asked the Committee Members to please limit their comments to questions that would require either Ms. Voronel or Mr. Espinozas input. She asked the Committee to please hold all discussions for the next meeting.

    Q&A:

    Q: Questions were asked regarding the number of cars going through, which times of the day the intersection is the busiest, and if a crossing guard is present at the intersection.

    A: Ms. Voronel was unable to answer the questions on cars and busiest times but did state that there is not a crossing guard available at that intersection.

    Applicant: Maintenance Services
    Project: Graffiti Removal Program
    Request: $28,190

    Presenting for Maintenance Services was Lyman Otley, Building and Facilities Superintendent for the City of Fullerton. Mr. Otley stated that 80% of their graffiti removal requests come from their 7-day, 24-hour graffiti hotline and the remaining come in from daily calls or staff observations.

    Mr. Otley introduced Matt who plays a crucial role in this project since he alone drives the graffiti truck and removes graffiti in all of Fullerton.

    Mr. Otley reported that this program removes graffiti from public and private property when visible to the public. A total of 290,000 square feet of graffiti was removed last year.

    Mr. Otley stated that although the graffiti is getting smaller, glass etching, a new type of graffiti is done with some sort of acid and Matt is still working on finding ways to remove it.

    Mr. Otley stated that CDBG funding helps with truck, materials, staffing costs, and helps with the general funds which have been cut this year. He indicated that 76% of the graffiti removed is in CDBG areas.

    Mr. Otley said that he and Matt were available for technical or any other questions.

    Q&A:

    Q: Committee Member Bambrook asked if their department works with Community Services to educate homeowners and kids about the destruction of graffiti.

    A: Mr. Otley stated that they do not have the funds to educate the community. He stated that Community Services had a program last year but he had no knowledge if it was still in place. Mr. Otley stated that although education is great, the biggest deterrence is to remove it quickly. He stated that they have a one-day turnaround and if it the graffiti is pornography or violent threats, it is removed immediately. He compared this to other cities that have a turnaround time of three to four days.

    Q: Committee Member Bambrook asked if they work in conjunction with the Police Department to catch the offenders.

    A: Mr. Otley gave the example of the Korean graffiti found in the pillars outside of Hunt Branch Library where if it is a common tagger, they can go after them, but other times it is not as successful. If records are kept, the cost can be recovered. He stated that offenders are fined and end up in court, but overall they do not have a good record of recovering funds.

    Q: Committee Member Moreno-Sandy asked if it is possible to detect or identify the person by the signature or tag.

    A: Matt stated that it depends on whether it is tagging or writing because there is a difference. Taggers do have nicknames and those can be tracked. Otherwise, you cannot really read it to identify the person.

    Q: Committee Member Bambrook said that the painting over graffiti is looking much better. She mentioned that at last years presentation they were working on paint matching and wondered if they were successful.

    A: Mr. Otley stated that Matt uses an analyzer and has become skilled at obtaining color matching. As they match colors, their database/library grows. They are very close to obtaining a match but not yet at 100%. Mr. Otley stated that Matt uses a handheld machine and with more training he will only get better. He stated that in areas with high visibility the paint is matched at 100%.

    Committee Member Elliot offered to Mr. Otley that they call City of Brea since he has observed graffiti glass etching at the Brea mall removed successfully.

    Applicant: Development Services Code Enforcement
    Project: Code Enforcement Program
    Request: $410,400

    Kirke Warren, Acting Code Enforcement Supervisor provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Warren advised that he has been in this position for twenty one days and hoped to be able to answer all of the Committees questions.

    He described Code Enforcement as a program which addresses problems related to health and safety in the community, abatement of nuisances and substandard living conditions, and blight in the community. He stated that Code Enforcement had generally been a reactive process in which the department responds to citizen concerns on an individual basis and an investigation is conducted to see if it is genuinely a code violation. During the past year, Code Enforcement responded to 2400 complaints, 11000 in CDBG areas and conducted 6300 inspections.

    Mr. Warren stated that funding is being requested to continue the Code Enforcement Program and Neighborhood Enhancement Program. The program includes two code enforcement officers dedicated to the Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET) which proactively attacks problems in low/mod areas.

    He stated that staff has received direction from City Council for a new Proactive Code Enforcement Program which will be focused in the area south of Commonwealth between Highland on the west and the railroad tracks on the east. Staff was directed to hire one new code enforcement officer making a total of three officers working solely in the above area. An additional officer will work all other low/mod areas in the City.

    He stated that issues that will be addressed include: exterior property maintenance such as peeling paint and deteriorating roofs, lawn parking, storing in-operable vehicles in property, trash issues, and illegal units, i.e. houses that have been illegally subdivided into multiple units and garage conversions. He showed pictures of properties that showed examples of these violations.

    Also addressed for the first time will be interior structures such as violations of the code, i.e., heat, inadequate stairs, and other safety issues.

    Mr. Warren indicated that from past experience in the Richman Park Area and where the City will be taking a proactive stance, it is easy to see that staff will be spending more time than with the reactive process.

    He reviewed the pictures with severe code enforcement violations. One picture he focused on showed a violation of boarded up homes that were pursued since Christmas and is still in the same condition. Mr. Warren explained that the process first has to go through the Building Department.

    He concluded his presentation by stating that they are asking for an increase in funds which will provide for staffing of one new bilingual Code Enforcement Officer to bring the CDBG total to four officers. The proactive phase is programmed for two years to complete.

    Q&A:

    Q: Committee Member Strub asked for the percentage of owner-occupied units in the new Code Enforcement area and how these low-income people are expected to be able to afford to make the corrections.

    A: Mr. Warren stated that it is approximately 60% owner-occupied and people would be referred over to Housing for rehabilitation assistance.

    Q: Committee Member Elliott asked which statutes Code Enforcement chooses to enforce because he lives in an area where no overnight parking is allowed and recently one car began violating the rule and now four months later there are several violators.

    A: Mr. Warren stated that they do not ignore any of the offenses and they try to enforce all but he did inform the Committee that for these types of issues, Code Enforcement refers over to Police Department who is the department responsible for parking enforcement.

    Q: Chairperson Jaramillo asked what had happened with previous plans of staffing a bilingual Code Enforcement Officer at the Community Center to allow this person to dedicate 40 hours a week exclusively to the CDBG area. She asked how the Committee would be assured that this new officer would be solely dedicated to this area vs. reacting to a highly influential persons complaint in another area of Fullerton.

    A: Mr. Warren stated that MIS could not get a computer system set up at the community center to interface with City Hall functions, but this employee is still mostly dedicated to the CDBG area. He added that this new direction will keep at least three people busy for the next couple of years. He explained that Staff divides the City into three regions and one third is funded by CDBG. The three officers that are funded by CDBG will be dedicated to these areas. It is expected that the other officers can handle the other two-thirds of the city. They will work on improving their computer expertise to better track the officers daily work.

    Q: Chairperson Jaramillo shared some research on the number of code enforcement officers other local cities employ vs. the size of the cities. She questioned if perhaps the City of Fullerton is fully staffed but not using the staff to full capacity due to always being reactive to City Council and other influential people when these problems have been there for years.

    Research findings:

    Fullerton, 131,000 population 6 Code Enforcement Officers
    Orange, 132,000 population4 Code Enforcement Officers
    Huntington Beach, 200,000 population6 Code Enforcement Officers

    A: Mr. Warren stated that three different options were presented to City Council with existing staff where options were to not maintaining the response time, to stretch out the improvement longer than two years, or adding a new Code Enforcement Officer. Staff was directed to hire a new Code Enforcement Officer. He spoke of the possibilities of hiring a contract inspector instead of a full time inspector. He stated that ultimately, this is the direction that they were given and they will tackle it as proactive as possible.

    Q: Committee Member Strub asked Mr. Warren for an approximate dollar amount to bring everything to code.

    A: Mr. Warren stated that this amount would be what Housing and Community Developments budget could fund. Ms. Morad stated that she does not believe a dollar amount has been calculated since in many cases it will not just be rehabilitation, but demolishing buildings, or simply moving an in-operable vehicle.

    Q: Committee Member Jensen-Purser asked Mr. Warren if the two-year estimate was realistic to improving the areas.

    A: Mr. Warren stated that he felt that they would make significance progress in two years with additional funding.

    Q: Committee Member Bambrook confirmed that the funding would be requested the upcoming year, asked if the employee would be a full-time employee, and expressed her disappointment for it taking the city this long to respond to all of the code violations in those areas of the city. She stated that she hopes that all officers are proactive in all of Fullerton.

    A: Mr. Warren stated that he felt that they would make significance progress in two years with additional funding and the person would be a full-time employee. He stated that all officers are instructed to be proactive.

    Applicant: Development Services Housing and Community Development
    Project: 1. Housing and Community Development Administration.2 Rehabilitation Program
    Request:1. $359,280 2. $609,350

    Ms. Morad presented the two projects for Housing and Community Development. She started her presentation by introducing her staff: Guillermina Torrico, Sylvia Chavez, who would be assisting with the presentation, and Mike Austin who has been with the City for almost two years.

    She presented a PowerPoint presentation and began with Housing Rehabilitation. Ms. Morad stated that this years Rehabilitation application is asking for $609,350 which includes $154,350 for the administration and $455,000 for project costs. She stated that the Committee was correct in this amount not being sufficient funds to do the whole city plus the new projects. Ms. Morad advised that she and Ms. Chavez have requested an appointment with the Redevelopment Agency to obtain additional funds.

    She reviewed the Project Expenditures over the last six years, which were lower this past year partly due because the department did not have an inspector for the first months. There were also lead-based requirements to put in place and staff had to attend workshops. The new regulations also added additional staff time and costs. Funds for the loan program started at only $44,200 in the revolving account. These funds were depleted and as a result, the number of grants was higher. She reported that as of the beginning of March of this year, the expenditures have already exceeded this amount.

    She reviewed the number of grants and loans provided and showed a map to indicate that the bulk of these projects were located in the south central part of Fullerton. The breakdown was as follows:

    Low-Interest Loans0
    Deferred Loans 1
    Emergency Housing Repair11
    Mobile Home Loans1
    Relocation Grants0
    Housing Grants20
    Lead-Hazard Reduction Grants13
    TOTAL46

    She reviewed the Rehabilitation Program budget for loans and grants with the current maximum amount and the proposed changes. Changes were proposed on the following programs:

    Mobile Home Loans Maximum Assistance amount will change from $10,000 to $15,000

    Roofs Grants Maximum Assistance amount will change from $5,000 to $7,500

    Exterior Paint Grants Maximum Assistance amount will change from $2,500 to $3,500

    Mobile Home Grants Maximum Assistance amount will change from $5,000 to $6,000 M

    The existing Block Improvement Grant will be terminated to change it to accommodate the first three priority areas identified by Code Enforcement.

    Ms. Morad advised that maximum assistance amounts may be increased on an as-needed basis by the Loan Committee.

    She displayed the current income guidelines published by HUD and stated that even the people that are in the 80% median income are having problems with the high housing costs in todays market.

    Ms. Chavez reviewed the rehabilitation projects that the department worked on over the past year. She provided before and after pictures of the type of work that was done.

    Conversion of a mobile home tub to a shower to make more accessible to a handicap senior.
    Entire House Rehabilitation: Repair of a cracked driveway, new paint, and new windows.
    An electrical panel upgrade from one that was running the entire household through one extension cord. Situation was a serious fire hazard waiting to happen due to panel not operating properly.
    Mobile Home Rehabilitation: Unitizing, repainting, stairs, electrical upgrade, and skirting.
    Kitchen remodel: Before kitchen had damaged plumbing and severe structural damage. Repairs were made and cabinets were installed.
    New roof and exterior paint from an old 5-layer roof that posed dangerous situation.
    1922 home that started out with exterior paint and high lead levels of lead in redwood sidings were found. The redwood sidings were replaced and painted, and a new roof was installed.
    Handicap Access ramp built for a senior in a mobile home who had stairs that she was unable to climb.

    Q&A:

    Q: Committee Member Strub asked for the percentage of old homes in the Code Enforcement area with high lead levels.

    A: Ms. Morad replied that they will definitely run across homes with lead and will only do as much as the funds will allow.

    Q: Chairperson Jaramillo explained that for most of the people living in those low-income areas they will do the majority of the work.

    A: Ms. Morad agreed and stated that she will have Code Enforcement pass out the lead pamphlets since many children are in these homes.

    Ms. Morad next reviewed the Housing Administration portion of the presentation. She stated that this department is responsible for management of CDBG Program, HOME funds, and the Section 108 Program. The department provides guidance to all CDBG/HOME Funded Programs, administers the Citizen Participation Process (CDCC), the Housing Rehabilitation Program, and the Downpayment Assistance Program. Housing Administration is also responsible for monitoring program compliance by non-profit subrecipients, monitoring affordable housing projects annual inspections, and preparing required documents.

    She reviewed the Neighborhood Housing Services (HOME Funded) project that was approved by City Council which will be turned into a home-ownership coop building and showed the Concept. Those people under the 45% of the median income will be able to purchase. The dollar amount of the sale price is still not available since it will be two years before these homes will be on the market. The 15-rental unit concept will be as follows:

    Two 1-Bedroom Units
    Eleven 2-Bedroom Units
    Two 3-Bedroom Units

    Ms. Morad showed the Section 108 map and the plan of the concept showing the enhancements to the streets and the area. She stated that the department is also responsible for completing documents like the Five-year Consolidated Plan, the One-Year Strategy/Action Plan, and the CP Annual Performance and Evaluation Reporting (CAPER).

    Presentations concluded at 8:36PM.

    Staff distributed the following documents:

    Updated Report on 2004-05 Requests reflecting changes in Boys and Girls Club and Fullerton Interfaith so the Committee has it available for next Mondays meeting where funding recommendations will be made.

    Revised Fullerton Interfaith Emergency Services application.

  5. PUBLIC COMMENT

    No public comments.

  6. ADJOURNMENT

    Chairperson Jaramillo adjourned the meeting at 8:40PM.

FacebookTwitterYouTube
RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2014 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547