 Good afternoon everybody. I call the meeting to order for the Housing Authority City of Santa Rosa meeting of February 24th, 2020. And we have help from our friends in the planning department. So thank you for both of you pitching in and helping us out today. So we'll move to roll call. Can we have roll call, please? Great. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present, not including the two vacancies. Okay. Three is statements of abstention. Is there a need for any member of the Housing Authority to abstain from any item on the agenda today? Apparently not seen none. We'll go to item four, which is the study session, 4.1, as a continuous notice of funding availability for affordable housing assisted with Home Investment Partnership Act Home Funding. And so Megan, you're going to be making the presentation today. Thank you. One moment, as hopefully the PowerPoint, there we go. All right. Good afternoon commissioners. I'm Megan Bassinger, Housing and Community Services Manager. Before you this afternoon is a study session on a continuous notice of funding availability for Home Investment Partnership Act funds, commonly known as home funds. So annually, the City of Santa Rosa receives an allocation of home and CDBG funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The home program has specific requirements attached to it, specifically that they have to be the last dollars into a project and that construction must begin within 12 months of that funding commitment. Staff is here before you today to ask that the Housing Authority consider having a continuous home NOFA to allow projects to apply for funding as they are needed, which would allow us to have a continuous cycle and projects could apply and then hopefully begin construction within a few months. As we are currently processing the NOFAs once a year, it really limits our ability to have projects with the last money in and that will be starting construction within 12 months. So the priorities for the home funds would be new construction that target large families, senior workforce and special needs. These are similar to the priorities that are associated with our other NOFAs that we have recently conducted. Project qualities that we would be looking for again similar to the other NOFAs that they start construction within 12 months and this is specific to home requirements. We commonly look for deeper affordability, 30 and 50 percent of AMI. We also have been focusing on projects that are located within a station area plan, a priority development area or an opportunity zone and that projects that also have some other benefits. So these are items that we identify and would like to see in proposals. The feasibility of the projects that we would bring forward to the ad hoc committee and then later to the Housing Authority for potential funding award would focus on their ability to begin construction quickly, that they have all other funding commitments and HUD requires that we have commitments in writing in our files and that we have vetted the developers' qualifications and capacity to carry out the project. Similar to our previous process, if the Housing Authority is agreeable to this continuous NOFA, we would solicit applications and as they are received and initially vetted by staff, then we would conduct an ad hoc committee to review the recommendation and then bring it to the Housing Authority at the next available meeting following review of the application materials. So that concludes my presentation. What staff is seeking today is verbal direction from the Housing Authority if you are in support of a continuous home NOFA. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Megan. So this is a study session item, so it doesn't require any action by the Housing Authority, but you're looking for kind of consensus that this approach makes sense. So I think that's a great feedback that you have associated with this plan. Mr. Olson, do you have any questions, comments? Yeah, I guess is there any reason not to do this? In my opinion, no. We currently have home funds on hand that we weren't able to commit through our last NOFA because they didn't fall within the 12 months and last month in cycle. And then another piece of information is in the upcoming year, as of July 1st, we anticipate having even more home funds. Our allocation increased 16% over 2019. So this is, if we don't change the way we process our home funds, we're going to have kind of a self-perpetuating problem with commitments. Thank you. Questions from Commissioner Tess? Commissioner Allen? The only question I had and it's somewhat related, we had talked about at one point revising the housing authority application to more closely resemble the tax credit and other financing applications. Have we done that yet? We collect the universal application along with we have a housing authority cover sheet. So we're continually trying to update the application materials to make it easier for the developer. So is there NOFA out now for the home funds? There is not. Our last NOFA was issued in August and that included the local, it was CDBG home and local funds and that was the, those are the applications that you have been vetting over the last few months. So of those projects, no home funds have been awarded. So the proposal was to have just almost an open NOFA throughout the year? Correct, until funds are committed and we are looking at another allocation. And then how would those be evaluated on as-need basis, first come, first serve? So for instance, if we were to open a continuous NOFA March 1st, if we receive an application that is complete and meets the requirements, staff would immediately begin reviewing it, convene an ad hoc and if the project was eligible bring it to the housing authority for review and hopefully a funding commitment. And these would be projects because home funds have to be last dollars and these are projects that are probably underway or soon to be underway. So if a project was proceeding through the process and identified a funding gap, this would be an opportunity for the housing authority to assist a project. The other requirement that the home funds would place on a project would be they would have to have an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. So it would be a few additional steps that would be required but it would be an opportunity for the housing authority to assist projects that have funding gaps. Thank you. So home funds do not allow for assisting existing developments through rehabilitation? Depends. Home regulations prevent us from putting funds into a project that already has home assistance. So if we have a project that needed assistance and we had not put in home funds, we would have an opportunity to assist that project. So it's specific to the project and proposal? So it's possible if it already has an award of home funds. So the process for notifying the applicants out there seems like maybe they're out of the... And maybe it's planned in the process to make people aware that we're changing the way that we're receiving these applications and maybe point out that fact for those applicants that are in that situation. So if we proceed with this, we have an e-mail list of about 100 developers that we contact when we have NOFA's. We also push it out through the city's website, through e-mails, citywide e-mails. And then we would update our application or our notification materials to include the parameters of this particular funding source. So we could identify that. So we should have success in having people know about this opportunity then through that method. Thank you. Remind me, is there a limit on the utilization of the home funds similar to CDBG, use them or lose them kind of thing? It's a commitment requirement. So it is, I believe, five years from the date that we signed the agreement with HUD. Are we getting close to that with our... Yeah. We've provided a fair amount of home assistance last year with the acquisition of the Parkwood apartments. So we have home funds on hand, but we are not currently against one of our commitment deadlines. So we're in fairly good shape. But trying to get ahead of any potential issues. Thank you. Megan, sorry. Excuse me, it looks like Commissioner Downey has a question. Excuse me. Yes. Commissioner Downey. Yes. I'm assuming that the application process is going to have to be updated within the confines of the application process. Is it possible for us to distribute affordable housing across our jurisdiction as opposed to having affordable housing in housing in high-density low-income pockets of our jurisdiction? Megan. We're certainly open to affordable housing within all areas of Santa Rosa. The way our process is structured is we rely on developers to bring us projects, and that's based on them identifying the land and putting together the financing, and especially with home that has to be the last money in. I think we have less influence over where those projects might be, but we can certainly prioritize projects that are located in areas of Santa Rosa that we haven't provided as much assistance within the last 10 or 15 years. And then the other comment I had was I was reading today in the press democrat that the governor of Santa Rosa, that the governor is releasing 49 parcels within our jurisdiction, and Mr. Gwine commented on that land availability, but stipulated that there was no additional funding to develop that land specifically for low-income housing or affordable housing. So could this be an opportunity of being super creative in taking these parcels of land, taking these ongoing NOFA's, putting them together, and giving us an opportunity to fast-track affordable housing for our most sensitive populations? So by way of background, yes, the governor declared Caltrans right away as not necessarily surplus property, but property available to help address the homeless crisis in Santa Rosa. The council gave staff direction last July to have the property appraise of what's known as the Southeast Greenway that would take you from Montgomery High School to Spring Lake Park in an effort to buy it from the state. We learned just this afternoon that that has been suspended by the state, and so the resource necessary to either situate a facility or anything to help the homeless situation would require some additional resources, so we're monitoring the state budget to see if dollars will follow, or local jurisdiction stepping up with something in the meantime. We have to still clarify commissioner Downey whether we can construct apartments or houses within this area, but that's a certainly an avenue we should be pursuing if available. Thank you. So to the extent that this conversation relates to the study session item, I think it's okay, but I just want to be mindful that we don't go too far beyond the agenda for today for Brown Act purposes. So my comment was that given the requirement to have these funds used in a very short period of time, that option would be very remote, but it's still an important issue, maybe not relevant to this funding source. Is that it, commissioner Downey? Yes, thank you. Okay, well, thank you very much. So it's probably not an issue that has to be decided now, but it was staff envisioning maybe a standing committee that would be there in case of a need or case-by-case basis. Once we issued the continuous NOFA and we received application or applications, we would contact the chair to appoint Nathawk and we would convene them as needed. Thank you. Yes, commissioner Allen. Are there any provisions that the $550,000 would have to be used for more than one project? Or can one project come in and utilize all those funds and meet other criteria? Potentially it could go to one project. HOME also has limitations on the amount you can assist per unit, so we would have to look at the application and within the lens of the funding source, but certainly I think that $550 could assist one project. Okay, so I think it's, unless there's any public comment at this particular point in time. I don't have any cards in front of me, so I'm assuming there isn't. We would return back to the housing authority to see if they're comfortable with proceeding as recommended by staff. Mods of agreement? Yes. Yes, this. Okay, thank you and it makes sense and as commissioner Olson said, is there anything wrong with this? Probably not. It's a great idea. So we are moving on to opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items. Any member of the public that wishes to come forward may do so now. Seeing no one come forward, we'll go to item six, which is the approval of minutes and we have four sets of minutes before us. So I guess I would ask members of the housing authority if they have questions about any of them. If they don't, then we can adopt them all by simply accepting them or if you have questions, we can take them individually, depending upon the date of the minutes. Let me ask first, are there any questions about any of the minutes? Hearing none, we will accept all sets of minutes as presented by staff. Thank you. So now we're to item seven, which is the chairman commissioner's report. I'll first ask if there's a member of the commission that has any comments here. I have a couple of quick things, which I will take up right now. There was no board commission meeting this last month that was canceled because the mayor was out of town, so there's nothing for me to report on that. There were letters sent to commissioners Morgan Johnson and Alpera thanking them for their service. So those have gone out and we appreciate their service and we're going to miss them. But I know there's a process somewhat along the way to have applicants considered for filling those vacancies. We've moved to item eight, which is committee reports. Oh, let me do one more thing going back to item seven. I thought this would be an accomplishment that everybody would be very happy with, but maybe I was mistaken because I wanted to thank staff for the new equipment, a larger format iPad, which for me makes a great deal of sense and it's much better. But I know that it's a piece of technology that is unique and maybe unfamiliar to other members of the housing authority. So I thought it would be a bit of a celebration, but maybe it should be an apology instead. Then to eight, which is the committee reports. Any reports that are not covered elsewhere in the agenda? We have a couple places where we've got committee input, but I can't remember anything that would require additional input. So we're to item nine executive director reports and then to the communication item. So, Mr. Gleinberg. Sure, first on item nine, there's two things to report. The first is we'll be polling members of the housing authority to convene a special meeting earlier in March between Tuesday, March 17th and Friday, March 20th. The purpose of that would be to meet a deadline for the voucher administrative plan later in the month. And the second is to make you aware that we've been corresponding with the tax credit allocation committee due to Blackwell, who's the executive director, advocating for Senator Thompson's disaster recovery tax credits that was in the budget that would pass the first or second week of December to keep the government running. The intent of the legislation was to have 100 million dollars go to the most impacted areas from the 2017 and the 2018 fire disasters, which includes Butte County. But the way the state had communicated the competitive program regulations is it was going to be on the same level playing field statewide. So just to make you aware that we've been advocating for that intent of the legislation to come to the most impacted area, suggesting they model the unmet need of the state HCD department. And then under communication items, a couple of nice awards for the program, especially for the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program. It got it for the award for the year. And we include an update of your affordable housing pipeline for your information. Happy to answer any questions. Questions? Yes, Commissioner Hahn. Can you explain the status on the 100 million? You talked about the lobbying efforts to have those funds placed where there were disasters in 2017, 2018, but the governor's decided or the state legislature decided to spread that throughout the state. Which way can you tell that that's going to lean? Right now, I would estimate that we have their attention, that there would be a priority for applications coming in for the later round of both the March and later round of 2020 and 2021. And then afterwards, and there would be a preference and priority if there was still some resources left. That's where I see this going. Commissioner Downey, do you have any questions or comments about the items under communications? I do not. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to congratulate staff on their good work for receiving the awards. And I think there's a lot of effort that goes into supporting the housing programs in the city that kind of fly under the radar. So very much appreciated for the things that you do during the disaster and then making the program like the VASH program work as well to get an award. Very good job. Thank you. Good support of staff behind us. On the pipeline issues, that's very helpful to have that as well. And kind of going along with comments earlier from Commissioner Downey about the priorities, particularly the location of developments throughout the city, I really do think that is something that staff and the board and the community need to focus on to make sure that we have language in there that kind of expresses a consistency with the council goals and then pointing out that there are pipeline projects that aren't in those priority areas. I think a couple of them are, but maybe the majority of them aren't. And so, you know, how we couch the language in terms of being open to projects, at least from my opinion, that would be in underserved areas, underserved in terms of disbursement of housing throughout the community. So I think that's a discussion that really is pointed out by having that list and looking at the information that's provided in the pipeline list. So thank you for that. So moving on to item 11 and 11.1, we have an extension of the regulatory agreement for Quail Run Apartments. So that's the one item. I see there's a staff presentation involved with that and it's a consent item. So I'm a little unsure about how you want to proceed if you're thinking that staff should make a presentation or only if there are questions from the board. Questions from the board. What you have is consistent with the city council packet. So if a council member wanted to pull an item, the presentation's ready to go. Okay. Okay, thank you. Yes, Commissioner Test. The only question I had somewhat related to Quail Run Apartments is last year on a housing authority site inspection, the condition of the units had some issues. Have those been resolved? Do we know? So do we need to remove this from the consent item for discussion? Yes. So if what you would do is a commissioner test would ask that the item be removed for consent for discussion. Okay. So I read your motion. Okay. So would you like to have it removed for discussion? That's why we're going to get answered to your question. Yes. Okay. We have a motion to remove it for discussion. Is there a second? Oh, second. Okay. Is there a second? Any further discussion? Hearing then, roll call, please. Or by acclamation, if we all agree, if there's no disagreement, we can move to having the presentation. So thanks, Rebecca. Oh, well, I can answer the question, which is that yes, the housing quality standards inspections come with a 30-day timeframe where the issues need to be resolved. If there are issues, and from my recollection, there were some longer-term projects that needed to take place, some of which they are still working on at the property. I know they're working on stairwells and things like that. But in terms of the individual units having failed HQS inspections, those are all resolved. Thank you. Okay. So it looks like the question has been received. We got a response to the question. Any further questions? If not, seek a motion for approval of the consent item. Make a motion to approve the item of the consent item. Thank you. I'll second it. I'll second. Did I hear a second? I'm not sure. Commissioner Downey, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Downey. I have to remember that you're there, and I need to pay attention. Thank you. Can we have a motion? Can we have a second? Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call, please. Chair Burke. Chair Burke. Aye. Okay. Commissioner Downey. Aye. Commissioner Olsen. Aye. Commissioner Allen. Aye. Commissioner Test. Aye. Perfect. Let the record reflect that it passes with five ayes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We are to item 12 on the agenda. And 12.1 is report from the Housing Authority Nominating Committee. We have Commissioner's Test and Commissioner Olsen, Commissioner Olsen, who were helping out and agreed to be on the committee. And so I would ask for either of them to make comments so that we can have nominations and move to the new step in the 2020 year. Diane and I talked over the telephone and did some considerations. And what we have come up with is we nominated Jeffrey Olsen for chair and Diane Tester, vice chair. Okay. We have a nomination for Commissioner Olsen as chair. Commissioner Tester's vice chair. Any further discussion about that? As a chair, I guess I'm not supposed to second it, but I would if it was more convenient. So I'm going to ask for another member to second. We have a second from Commissioner Downey. Any further discussion? Hearing none, congratulations. Commissioner Olsen, Commissioner Test, and I'll pass the gavel to our new chair. Thank you. Thank you. And you'll have to excuse that I'm not as well-versed on this as Commissioner Byrd and we're on 12.2. So moving along to 12.2, this item is the final funding recommendation for the 2019-2020 loan and project-based voucher notice of funding availability. Project-based voucher notice of funding availability, additional recommendations for the London Tunis senior apartments project. It's up here. Chairman Owen and housing authority commissioners. This item is the final funding recommendation of funding availability. And this will close this chapter of NOFA and release any of the remaining funds, which are a little bit over a million, including the home funds that were the subject of your study session, and also release the 67 project-based vouchers for other processes. As you recall, the NOFA was issued on August 6th, 2019 announcing the availability of 75 project-based vouchers and approximately 2.5 million of local and federal funds, including community development block grant, CDBG, and the home program funds. The housing authority received 12 applications, requesting over $13 million and 126 project-based vouchers. Chairman appointed an ad hoc committee consisting of commissioners, testing Owen to review the applications with staff and forward recommendations to the housing authority. The committee met on three different occasions, most recently on February 13th for the current recommendation. In making recommendations, staff and the ad hoc committee considered federal funding eligibility and funding criteria, as well as local criteria that were identified in the NOFA. The federal funding program criteria included, for example, time constraints for expenditures of funds, construction dates, basic eligibility of programs. Federal funds also trigger federal environmental review and may trigger Davis-Bacon prevailing wages. And project-based vouchers also have programmatic and project limits, which I will discuss in a little bit more detail later. The local criteria established in the NOFA included project readiness, financial feasibility, development team qualifications, capability and expertise, affordability levels, number of units in the mix, proposal completeness and accuracy, and any housing authority policies or preferences. As you recall, on December 19th, the Housing Authority approved funding for two rehab projects and total operating funds for an organization. Five projects were set aside for further evaluation and consideration at the January 2020 meeting. And four projects did not meet the NOFA selection criteria or eligibility for federal funding and did not receive any further consideration. Then on January 27th, the Housing Authority approved a pre-development funding for one project, the Canary at Railroad Square. And the Linda Tunis Senior Housing Project was also on that agenda, but it was not considered at that time pending confirmation that the CDBG funds could be used for the special circumstances of that particular acquisition. All of the projects that were considered for funding and or project-based vouchers as applicable and applicants who did not receive funding or project-based vouchers have been already notified. This project, which is the subject of this recommendation, is located at 600 Acacia Lane at the site of the former Scottish Rite Masonic Center. The 2.8-acre site contains two buildings. The loan source under consideration are the CDBG funds in the amount of 690,000. The purpose would be for acquisition of a portion of the property, 1.27 acres, and the larger building at 20,380 square feet. Currently, that's a commercial building. The acquisition would be by Caulfield Lane Senior Housing, Inc. The applicants are also requesting an allocation of eight project-based vouchers that will enhance their financing availability by increasing revenue and therefore providing additional funds for debt servicing and therefore a larger first mortgage loan. And as mentioned earlier, there are certain project and program limitations for the project-based vouchers. A project cap typically is 25 vouchers or 25% of the total units, whichever is greater. This project with eight falls under that standard, but the cap really doesn't even apply to this project because it's for a certain group, which is seniors who are 62 years of age or older. Programmatically, the Housing Authority may set aside 20% of the total housing choice vouchers for the total housing choice vouchers as project-based vouchers. For certain types of housing, the Housing Authority may project-based an additional 10%. This project is one of eight projects with a total of 208 vouchers, project-based vouchers, that are either in a contract or pre-contract stage. So that's the cumulative number. And that number represents about 11% of the total housing choice voucher units. Therefore, the project is under the program cap. And as a sign of the Housing Authority, this type of project may be considered as one of the 10% that can go 10% above the base. We'd have to check with our... We didn't do this for this, but we'd have to check with our administrative plan to see if the service is lined up. So in a nutshell, the project is a conversion of non-residential structure to 26 affordable senior studio apartments. It is eligible to meet federal... It is eligible for the CDBG funding and also for project-based vouchers. It also meets the project... the program criteria for the NOFA in terms of readiness and affordability. Building permits are under review. Construction is anticipated to start in July 2020. And it would take up to about a year of construction and maybe as little as eight months. The loan will be subject to completion of environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as a subsidy layering view by a state agency, which is the TCAC, Tax Credit Allocation Committee, on behalf of HUD. And also completion of approvals by the city's Planning and Economic Development Department to make the temporary approval for the use of the apartments into a permanent approval. The project is located in the city's northeast quadrant. Fund raising by the applicant, PEP Housing, includes many grants from foundations and banks with efforts are... and efforts are continuing to secure all necessary funds to construct the project. And residents will have access to amenities both on-site and at an adjacent property of PEPs called Acacia Lane Senior Apartments. The on-site amenities include a large dining room and event space, patio gardens, a dog run, and a kitchen. And the adjacent property has a community room, also a kitchen, a patio, gardens, and exercise equipment. It is recommended by the Housing Authority ad hoc committee, and the Housing and Community Service Department that the Housing Authority, by resolution, approve a loan of community development block grant funds in the amount of $690,000 and an allocation of eight project-based vouchers to Caulfield Lane Senior Housing Inc. for Lend-A-Toon as senior apartments, 26 senior units located at 600 Acacia Lane. I'm happy to answer any questions and also let you know that Jim Wallin from PEP Housing is here as well. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? I have a question. A subsidy layering review. What is that? Frank, I'm not familiar with that. Good afternoon, Rebecca Lane. I'm the manager of the Housing Choice Voucher Division, and the subsidy layering review is required as part of the project-based voucher allocation for any new construction. That's required by HUD. In California, they've contracted that service to TCAC, as Frank mentioned. That's the state entity that's in charge of doing that review. And it's essentially a review of all of the funding that's in a project to make sure that it's subsidized. Okay, okay. And then any interested in maybe some of the high points, if there are any, or maybe perhaps discuss with the committee about comments from other city boards and commissioners, design review board, planning commission, others, this project may have come in front of. The project was approved, both the use as a temporary use and designed from the city zoning administrator. So that all was funneled to that program, and they did a CEQA exemption for that temporary use as well. We're looking for a permanent approval, so the applicant has an application in through the planning department to turn that temporary use, which is a five-year use into a permanent use to secure our funding. Okay, thank you. And then the location of the adjacent supported project, is that just to the north of this parcel? Yes, it is. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I guess I'm confused. What is, there's a building there now and what is that building now? So right now, there are actually two structures on the site. One was formerly the Scottish Rite Masonic Center, like a meeting hall space, and the other, I believe, was an office, and the other one is continuing to be an office for pep housing. They moved their administrative offices here from Petaluma, so they're occupying the smaller structure, which I believe is 4,000 or 4,400 square feet, and the other structure is the subject of this funding. And they plan to do a lot split to split off the, you know, the property is 2.8 acres more or less right now, and about an acre and a quarter or so would go to this Linda Tunis, and the other remaining portion would stay with the smaller building and any potential future uses that they might envision for that site, and the other one is the old Scottish Rite building. Most of the building area is yes, yes, 80-some percent. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wallen, did you want to add anything to the presentation? Good afternoon, Chairman Owen, and the commissioners. Pep Housing, it's board of directors, it's staff, and it's seniors on its waiting lists. We're looking forward to this opportunity. We are repurposing 20,400 square feet into 26 units. It's a new way of doing this, and this creative market we're in, and we are looking forward to starting this in, like Frank said, as soon as possible, we do have some a couple more grants and donations coming in to fulfill our need, thank you. Could you state your name again for the record? Director of development. Any other commissioners have questions? How big are these units going to be? Roughly 340 to 375 square feet. There are one bedroom studio with a kitchenette and a full bathroom. Thank you. Mr. Wallen, could you go over what other services are going to be provided at the facility for the next few years? This is going to be the unique part for PEP. All PEP properties have on site a residential property manager and a residential coordinator. Those coordinators then take care of any of the seniors' needs outside of the property, i.e. doctor's appointments, any type of need that they have, the property manager takes care of the needs within the property. The PEP property, this PEP property will have with it a dining hall which is the large dining hall the mason's used for their gatherings. We're going to keep that as a PEP property residential where all parties including the seniors from outside the area can come and enjoy lunches, things of that nature and we hope to open basically the whole community. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, do we want to seek an approval on the resolution? I'll make a motion to approve the resolution of the housing authority of the city of Santa Rosa approving a loan in the amount of $690,000 and an allocation of eight project-based vouchers to Caulfield Lane Senior Housing Inc. for Linda Tuna's senior apartments and waive the reading of the text. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Can we call for the vote please? The item passes with So Chair Olsen. Aye. I'm perfect. Thank you Vice Chair Test. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Owen. Oh, just kidding. Thank you. Commissioner Downey. Aye. The item passes. Did you get all votes recorded? Okay, thank you. We might have missed Commissioner Burke for a vote, I think. I vote in favor. Just in case. Thank you. Moving on to 12.3, the Sage Commons Section 8 project-based vouchers. Chairman Owen and Housing Authority commissioners. This item is a recommendation for eight project-based vouchers for Sage Commons. The project site is located at 680 College Avenue, west of Cleveland Avenue and east of the railroad tracks. Sage Commons has been approved by the city's zoning administrator. Funding has been committed to the project. The project includes 53 studio units of permanent supportive housing for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The targeted incomes are 30% and 40% of area median income and there's also a one bedroom unit for the resident manager. Last spring, Sage Commons applied for Housing Authority funding under a prior project name which was College Avenue supportive housing so this may look familiar. That note targeted multifamily rental projects that were submitting applications for competitive state funding sources with a mid-2019 deadline. The Housing Authority supported a different project which is Dutton Flats to make it more competitive for the 9% tax credit allocation program. Dutton Flats was in fact successful in receiving those 9% tax credits and anticipate starting construction this spring. Sage Commons was also received 9% tax credits in the second round of the TCAC or tax credit allocation committee round 2019 round even without the Housing Authority's financial support. The project-based voucher program is a component of the HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program. There are two ways for the Housing Authority to allocate project-based vouchers. One is a request for proposals such as the NOFA process in which the Housing Authority just allocated project-based vouchers for the Lended Tune to Senior Apartments project. The second way is for projects that were allocated under the no project-based voucher consideration program. Local, state, or federal housing assistance program would no project-based voucher consideration within the prior three years. Sage Commons as indicated was allocated tax credits in 2019 under the 9% competitive tax process and that application did not consider that project-based vouchers are eligible to receive an allocation of project-based vouchers. Danco communities has requested eight project-based vouchers for Sage Commons. This request, similar to the Lended Tune's project, is under the project-based voucher standard of 25 vouchers or 25% of the total units, whichever is greater. However, again, the cap does not apply to households that are eligible for services such as the homeless community. In addition, housing authorities programmatic cap is not exceeded with these additional project-based vouchers. The housing authority may allocate 20% of its total housing choice vouchers as project-based vouchers and an additional 10% for special circumstances including this circumstances which is families who are homeless. The housing authorities inventory of project-based voucher contracts is a total of 208 or 11% of the total housing choice voucher units and is therefore under the basic program cap. The Sage Commons operating expenses include services and security which are expenses that many affordable housing developments do not have. In addition, revenues are low due to the maximum 30% and 40% rents that are on the project which is also lower than most so the revenue stream is lower than many projects. The tax credit investor in the project, Raymond James, is underwriting the rent even lower than 30% and 40% because of this is a special needs population and as a special needs population their incomes may be tied to social security disability and therefore their incomes could be less than being able to afford 30% of their salary for a 30% and a 40% tax credit unit. But the 8 project-based vouchers by increasing the income and the revenue stream would provide sufficient additional rental income for operational costs to satisfy the tax credit investor over this 15-year tax credit compliance period to help secure housing for homeless individuals. It is recommended by the Housing Authority AdHoc Committee and by the Housing and Community Service Department that the Housing Authority by Resolution allocate 8 project-based vouchers to Santa Rosa College Avenue LP for Sage Commons located at 6 and 80 College Avenue. I have to answer any questions that we have and also point out that the Housing Authority by increasing the income and the revenue stream of the voucher as well. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? When are you going to start? The chair recognizes, is it Mr. Gard? Yes, I'm Chris D'Art, Danco communities developer for this project and we're excited about this project this very needed project in your community bringing 54 units just where on schedule to break ground as Frank mentioned this project received an allocation of tax credits in the second round our construction, our project plans have been submitted to the building department or under review. We're required to close on our financing by April 20th. So we're moving fast. We'll be planning on breaking ground somewhere at the beginning of May, when we get through the environmental review for these project-based vouchers and we anticipate the project will take no more than 18 months to construct these units will be fully leased up by year in 2021 and we appreciate your support and consideration of this request also the services we're partnering with Reach for Home a local nonprofit group that will provide case management for half of the units and then the Department of Health and Human Services will provide case management for the other half of the units and will have an onsite service coordinator that Reach for Home will provide on onsite and they will provide the relevant services for the different residents as needed and then security as Frank mentioned I'm here to answer any questions Any questions? I'd be interested in a similar design review board planning commission comments and then specifically maybe the mitigation measures along the smart tracks about that sample I don't know if you want to answer that Frank So the zoning administrator has approved both the conditional use permit and design review for the project. The project is also receiving a density bonus as part of those approvals The rail road and the project was also found to be exempt pursuant to CEQA the California Environmental Quality Act so there are no mitigations for that would be associated environmentally with the state review. However with the project based vouchers the project will be undergoing a second environmental review and that is under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA we don't know yet but there could be some mitigations coming forward pursuant to the second environmental review and that will not be an exemption it will be an environmental analysis I guess I would like to better understand so people will be sleeping and some of the units will be adjacent to the tracks and how is that to be dealt with in terms of their comfort level is that the question there all of the the property is directly adjacent to the tracks the smart train and are you concerned about noise is that the question? We have done a noise study on the side that was one of the requirements that the building department required and were required to meet a certain number of decibels so we have windows and your typical windows and then all of the heating and cooling and any penetrations adjacent to the tracks and also College Avenue are set up in a way that mitigates that noise attenuation so we have to meet a certain threshold as a state requirement and we have designed the building accordingly. Thank you. With the reason uptake of pedestrians being struck by smart trains have you factored this problem into your plan as far as helping people who are struggling so they may not see that as a an invitation to harm themselves? All of our project facility is gated and we do have camera systems located at every entryway and there's one way in and one way out you have to basically come in through the front entry and you can't just go out to the tracks you'd have to come around the side but not anything specifically but I understand the concern and why it's being brought up the recent events that happened as I hear. Thank you. It was your task. Can you explain you had mentioned two different entities handling the support for the different services and is that due to funding reasons? It is. In partnership with the County of Sonoma we applied to the HCD for no place like home funds and those you're allowed to do 49% of the total units would be with no place like home and that was a partnership between the county and the department to provide case management services to half of those residents. But given that the facility is 100% supportive housing for homelessness, the other 51% of the units are done in partnership with Reach for Home and they will provide the case management services for those residents. And then there will be a service coordinator full-time equivalent on-site that will be provided to the residents, not inclusive of case management, but any other services that the residents might need depending on the needs of the residents to be tailored each individually. The other question I had, what is the layout of the units? How are they set up? Well, they're all studios. They're 350 square feet and slightly larger. The first floor will be a community space, individual meeting rooms for counseling. You know, there's, we have a recreational room for billiards and air hockey and, you know, TV and lounging and that sort of thing. And then there's, it's surrounded by a large courtyard outdoor area that will have, you know, bike parking, shade areas, places for recreation for the residents. And the second floor are all units, residential units. And there are ADA accessible units on the first floor, but all 100% of the units are actually accessible. So that doesn't really matter because we have an elevator, all the units are accessible. I like this project. Thank you so much. Commissioner Olson, any questions? I think the area where the truck is often you find petroleum types of operations or, you know, previous issues with possible contamination. Phase one has probably been done for the project and any problems associated with that. No, not at all. The phase one has been done for the project and there was no recognized environmental conditions. Thank you. A few questions. Can you share with us a little bit about the project? I think it's similar to the services you'll be providing for this property. We do. We just had a ribbon cutting for a facility in Rio del for 26 unit cottages that we just opened for the same population. 26 folks experiencing homelessness. We're at risk. We're under construction. Or we completed three years of people experiencing homelessness and then we're under construction on a 51 unit supportive housing project in downtown Eureka around the 101 corridor. 25% of those residents are veterans and the other 25% or the other 50% of those residents are generally experiencing homelessness and then we're also under construction on an 80-unit town home facility out on the west side of the city. And that has 20 supportive housing units and we're just completing a 75-unit project in Gilroy, California, 50% of those units are supportive housing as well. Thank you. Welcome to Santa Rosa and thank you for putting such a great project in front of us. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're now completing eight project based vouchers under a 20-year project based housing assistance payments contract for Sage Commons located at 680 college avenue and wave the reading of the tasks. Any seconds? I'll second then. Chairman Downey can we call Commissioner Owen. Hi. Commissioner Downey. Hi. Commissioner Burke. Hi. Let the record reflect that the motion passes with five ayes. Thank you. Can we move on to report 12.4, conveyance of four parcels located at 6 and A street in the city of Santa Rosa. Good afternoon again. I am Megan Bassinger, Housing and Community Services Manager. Before you is the conveyance of four parcels to the city of Santa Rosa. As you can see on the slide above, the four parcels are commonly known as the remnant parcels. These were originated from the creation of the Santa Rosa Plaza in the early 80s. They are highlighted in red at the bottom right hand of your screen. You can see that a portion is vacant and a portion is right of way on 6th Street, which is road and sidewalk. The background of these parcels is that they were conveyed from the redevelopment agency to the housing authority in 2011 as part of the dissolution of redevelopment. The state later determined that the conveyance of the parcels from the redevelopment agency to the housing authority did not meet redevelopment law. Since that time staff has been working diligently to resolve this issue. So as you may have read in the staff report and through the attachments, this has come before the housing authority. It has gone to the redevelopment, the successor agency. We have gone to the consolidated oversight board. We have gone to the Department of Finance. We have come back to the successor agency, back to the consolidated oversight board and received final approvals from the Department of Finance in December of 2019 to convey the parcels. So in January 2019, the Department of Finance authorized the conveyance of one of the four parcels and that was the parcel located entirely within 6th Street to be used for right of way. And then most recently in December of 2019, the State Department of Finance approved the conveyance of the remaining three parcels to the City of Santa Rosa for governmental purposes, which means the dedication of right of way the street and sidewalk and then ultimately the remaining develop portion can be used for affordable housing purposes. Following the various entities that have reviewed and approved this project, we are requesting that the housing authority today approve conveyance of the parcels to the City of Santa Rosa and the intention is that we have a clean record that shows that you have acted on this and are authorizing the conveyance of the four to the City and then the City will later be asked to retain the right of way and then dispose of the develop portions of the property. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Do you have any questions? Commissioner Byrne? Yeah, I'm happy to see this at this point. And so it says we'll be going to Caritas Village and essentially development. So is that a firm commitment yet or is that something yet to be approved? That is yet to be approved. I am currently working with the City's Real Property Manager and City Attorney's Office to determine the easiest and best course of action. The portion of the property that is able to be developed, as you can see here in the graphic, is relatively small and that block is entirely owned by Catholic Charities at this point in time. So this is the remaining portion of the block. They have acquired all other parcels there. And Caritas is proceeding with their development proposal. It's going to the Planning Commission on Thursday and will be in front of the City Council on March 3rd. So they are including whatever portion of the development might be on that plan? Or do you know? The parcels have been included in the development application and it's being conditioned accordingly so that the dedication that is needed for the project is being included as a condition of approval per engineering. Great. I'm glad to see us at this point. Any other questions? I have a few questions. So in that red block there are four parcels, is that correct? That is correct. So unfortunately it's not delineated as to four parcels that just shows the sum. So one of them is really tiny. It's like a tiny sliver that's actually in the street and you may be able to... Oh here we go with the red sliver. This might be on my skill set. Okay. That tiny little sliver right there is the fourth. I don't know if you're able to see it behind you, but it's a little just a little rectangle. So you have one two three and four. So will there be a lot lined adjustments? So with sidewalk and street we'll go to the city and the balance. Well it's all going in the city, but is the plan the city would keep the sidewalk and the street obviously in the balance? So the action before you today is to convey all four parcels to the city and as part of the development proposal that is proceeding for Caritas, they currently have a tentative map in and that includes all the parcels. The conditions would require the street and sidewalk to be retained by the city of Santa Rosa and the part that we still need to resolve with the real property manager is the process for disposing of the available portion which is the green area on the northern northwestern eastern part of those parcels. So it's likely to be remaining two parcels, one that's kind of public right away and the rest is on the site itself? Correct through yeah and the city surveyor will be revising the legal descriptions accordingly. I think you went over this but how did housing authority obtain authority over this these lands? These properties were part of the development of Santa Rosa Plaza. So when the redevelopment agency acquired a fair number of parcels back in I believe the early 80s to construct the Plaza and re-align the streets for the parking garage the redevelopment agency held those and they had been holding those until 2011 when redevelopment was dissolved and as part of the dissolution process they conveyed them to the housing authority because they were seen as a housing asset and unfortunately the State Department of Finance did not agree with that mindset. Well housing asset as a stream is a bit of a stretch so I can see that. Any further questions? Just one observation and that's it I think on the pipeline list before us earlier I think it does not show any commitment on our part for Caritas Village and did we not make a commitment for both the land and it looks like there would be an additional commitment of some property. We currently do not have a commitment into Caritas in the the project that is currently being contemplated the housing authority did provide Catholic Charities with a loan of $750,000 several years ago to acquire the general hospital site which is the the large building at the top of the graphic and that was acquired from St. Joseph's. So the housing authority provided a loan to Catholic Charities to purchase that property from St. Joseph's who had held the property since the general hospital closed. Seems like that should show up on that list as a commitment. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it's a little different situation. I was struggling with how to capture our investment thus far and Caritas in its current iteration we have not provided any commitment. It could be revised. Any other questions? We have a motion on the resolution. I will be happy to make a motion for a resolution of the housing authority the city of Santa Rosa approving conveyance of four parcels located at 6 and a street to the city of Santa Rosa for governmental purposes. We have a second. Commissioner Downey is the second. Can we call for a vote please? Roll call vote for item 12.4. Yes. Chair Owen. Aye. Vice Chair Test. Aye. Commissioner Olson. Aye. Commissioner Downey. Aye. Commissioner Burke. Aye. Let the record reflect the motion passes with 5 ayes. I believe that concludes our schedule for today. Thank you very much and adjourn the meeting for today. Thank you very much.