 Good afternoon. I'd like to call the July 24th 2023 housing authority regular meeting to order Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website as noted on the agenda As a matter of housekeeping, I'd like to remind commissioners to keep their microphones muted unless they are speaking The city of Santa Rosa is committed to creating a safe and inclusive environment free from disruption We will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions And are well staffed to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed If necessary, we're also immediately in the meeting clerk. Please explain how the public comments will be heard at today's meeting At each agenda item after the item is presented the chair will ask for housing authority commissioner comments After the commissioner comments, the chair will open the item for public comment The chair will first call for in-person public comments and then we'll request public comments from those participating via zoom For members of the public joining the meeting via zoom, you will be participating as an attendee Your microphone and camera will be muted If you're calling in from a telephone and choose to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda For privacy concerns the host will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident and the last four digits of your phone number For members of the public attending in person and would like to make a comment on hearing items When the chair calls for public comments after the item is presented Please go to the closest public speaking podium and the upper tier of chambers Where the clerk will unmute your microphone and permit your comment to be heard The zoom host will be lowering all hands until public comments via zoom are opened for the agenda item Once the chair is called for zoom public comment The zoom host will call upon each member of the public and the order that their hands are raised in zoom And we'll continue to call upon those who wish to participate until the list in zoom is exhausted If you're calling in to listen to the meeting audibly you can dial star 9 to raise your hand Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker per item Public comments are limited to one comment per speaker per item Once all live public comments have been heard the clerk will read email public comments If you provide a live public comment on an agenda item, but also submitted an email your email public comment Will not be read during the meeting Additionally, there is one public comment period on today's agenda to speak on non agenda matters item 5 This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda But which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority Thank you before I ask the clerk to do a roll call for a tense to assist with the streaming the meeting and capturing Commissures as they are speaking when a commissioner has a question or comment, please ask the chair to be recognized This will allow the time for the cameras to shift to a new speaker Clerk, would you please perform a roll call? I will Okay, we'll start with Commissioner Newton Yeah Commissioner Smith yeah Commissioner Downey Commissioner McWhorter is absent Commissioner Rawhouser absent Vice Chair LePenna here chair Owen here Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of commissioners McWhorter and Rawhouser Thank you. I'd like to move to item number three, which is statements of abstention Do any commissioners need to abstain from any items today? Okay, I do need to note that I need to abstain from item number 11.1, which is the fiscal year notice of funding availability funding recommendations and we'll be turning the meeting over to the vice chair Number four study session There are no study sessions items on this agenda Number five like to open it up for public comment. Is there anybody in chambers for public comment? Okay seeing none do we have any on zoom I see no hands raised on zoom. Thank you any email public comments Chair, we have no email public comments. Hey moving right along number six Approval or minutes to any commissioners have comments on the meeting on the minutes for the meeting on June 26 Seeing no comments on that just does not require a vote. So we'll go ahead and approve those meetings Those minutes item number seven any chairperson or commissioner reports Just cruising along here. So Nothing on nine number seven any committee reports No committee reports Item nine executive director reports and community item communication items Yes, good afternoon chair Owen. I'm Kate gold fine administrative services officer for housing and community services sitting in for Megan passenger Who's out of the office? We house that Thank you. Did you get doing you to repeat that? Okay? So we have two communication items The first is the annual adjustment to the housing authority processing fee schedule And there's a memorandum there and several resolutions attached for your information the second item is the monthly pipeline update and There that is also attached for your information any comments from commissioners. I Just have a question Mission noon, yeah Fairly new to this so it's first time I've looked at like this fee schedule like this Is this based on kind of a state template or something like that? It's just something that's been developed in Santa Rosa over the years And we just continue to sort of amend it the ladder we developed that here. Yes How does it compare to other jurisdictions in the state in terms of Fees so expensive less expensive. I don't have that information here, but I can certainly get that for you If you don't mind just give me some context on it as a fairly new guy I'm also just kind of curious if If the fees are any sort of deterrent to Development You know just just looking at those it as an outsider some of those seem fairly steep and I'm sure they're That way for a reason, but I'm just curious if you hear anything any grumblings from Folks that this may be some sort of deterrent to Like the affordable housing mission No, I don't think so but I will need to do further research and get back to you Okay, I appreciate it and thanks for putting it together just more in the in the way of giving me some context on Those thanks. That's all I got Any other commissioners have questions? Okay here Dr. Downey So one moment Nicole del Fiorentino housing trust manager is going to come as these fees are in her division one moment Hey, good afternoon Commissioner Downey. Thank you for the question So these fees and the housing authority fee schedule are primarily to recoup staff time For each of those activities. So what the 3% escalator that's intended to match the labor time that goes into performing each one of those duties Mr. Downey to any other questions Question I do have on on the fees schedule is there an opportunity for any developer to ask for a waiver of any of these fees Or an adjustment So we don't have a formalized process to request waivers We also believe that these fees are generally typical in the industry and it do not have developers Requesting few waivers for these especially for things like compliance monitoring fees are pretty standard Okay, thank you. I do have a question on Okay, so that was item 9.1 So we need to open up 9.1 for any public comment We're not taking public comment on item 9.1 If you wish to make a public comment, and you're here in the chambers, please proceed to one of the podiums Chair and appears we have no in person public comment any public comment on zoom Chair, oh, and I see no hands raised in zoom at this time about email comments True and we have no email public or no email comments on this item. Okay. Thank you So this doesn't require a vote. So we'll go on to item 9.2, which is the pending development pop pipeline No discussion on the pipeline any questions from commissioners. I have one is there Nothing has changed from the last meeting. Is that correct on adding new new projects or anything? No new projects per se, but each month we do update each project if they're a total development cost changes Or if they're timeline changes for construction, so this is updated every month But no new projects have been added this current month. Are you forecasting anything new the rest of the year? It will depend on next year's NOFA application. That's typically when we see new projects that apply And come on our radar and then we would add them on to the pipeline Also, throughout the year we have projects that receive density bonus agreements and Hap agreements through our planning and economic development department. So as those agreements are executed They would be added on to the pipeline as well Commissioner Downey for change of the pipeline projects Unless I just didn't see the numbers which is possible Is there an ETA in here as to when these projects are expected to be done or these with projects that are just in the queue? So this is a compilation of projects that have been completed within the last 24 months projects under construction right now and projects that are awaiting other things like permits and funding to start on The column that is the second from the right Has the completion date? These are the estimated target dates for project completion when they would start leasing up Any other questions Commissioner Downey Any other commissioners have questions? I have a few if we can look at Kiwana Springs and Santa Rosa Avenue both being developed by integrated community development And showing completion date of July 31st. I've asked that that be reviewed and updated I don't see them hitting that date And we reach out to those developers on a monthly basis to get updates, but with projects like these two Those are either density bonus agreements or half agreements only So there is no loan from the housing authority to those projects And it can be a little bit more difficult to track down those developers to get construction updates from them Okay Along that same the same line so It's city council level and state level We're trying to take care of the arena numbers for the local jurisdiction and I and those two projects because they're only density Bonas that don't have any local funding. There isn't any We're not showing the full affordability So if there's a way we could have this and I've asked this and prior meetings to show how these units affect the arena numbers and It's so that we can look at this because there's a lot of between the total on this is 2,300 units and Most of these units or projects are a hundred percent affordable except for a manager's unit to show how those units actually affect the arena numbers would be beneficial because This is the most development and affordable housing space I've seen in Santa Rosa in a very very long time So that would be help to helpful to have that because it is a milestone that Santa Rosa and other key jurisdictions are trying to meet but otherwise This is a thank you for putting this report together because it's very helpful Absolutely, and the planning and economic development department does report out on our arena accomplishments on an annual basis and Those units that are affordable whether or not it's the city that restricts them are reported out by planning to the state So that you know we get credit so to say for all of those affordable units it's a Live document if you will so they report every year on the status whether they're under construction completed And so those numbers may flux but they are being reported out Okay, thank you Seeing no other questions from commissioners. I'll open up a public comment We're now taking public comments on item 9.2 if you are in chambers and like to make a public comment Please go to one of the podiums and the upper tier. All right chair. Owen appears. We have no in-person public comments See any zoom comments Cheryl and I see no one in zoom at this time Any email comments and Cheryl and we have no email comments for this item It's okay, we'll move on to item 10 it for consent items. There are no consent items on this report and this meeting and Then item 11 is a report item for which I need to recuse myself So I will hand over the imaginary gavel over to the vice chair Thank you very much. All right. Good afternoon housing authority commissioners. No, cool. Del Fiorantino housing and community services manager I'm here to present item 11.1 today the fiscal year 2023 2024 notices of funding availability funding recommendations Okay, so to go over briefly our NOFA solicitation process on April 24th The housing authority study session was held to review the NOFA process and to receive input on Soliciting home investment partnership program or home funds in a rolling NOFA Separate from the regular NOFA process at each spring that contains our other funding sources At the June 19th meeting chair Owen appointed vice chair lapenna and commissioner Newton to the ad hoc review committee to review the Applications from the NOFA that was solicited So both notes NOFAs were published on May 10th $8.1 million was made available through the regular annual fiscal year 2023-24 NOFA with those applications being due on June 9th The home funds were solicited in a separate NOFA for about $653,000 with applications accepted on a continuous rolling scale After the applications were received from the June 9th deadline the ad hoc review committee met And reviewed the applications on July 7th The funding recommendations are now being presented to you at today's housing authority meeting of July 24th So a little bit about the two NOFAs to drill down further About $8.1 million is available in the annual fiscal year NOFA From that about 1.3 million is available on cdbg funds 1.2 is available from the plha funds And about 5.7 is available from local funds Separate from that NOFA The second NOFA for home funds had about $653,000 available Of that amount 343,000 must go to a community housing development organization known as a CHODO It's a special type of nonprofit organization So the remainder of that about 310,000 in change could be loaned to any nonprofit developer All right an overview of the application scoring from the NOFAs which both the NOFAs had the same criteria and their scoring process The readiness category is available for 10 points Affordability for 20 bedroom size for 8 points Special needs set asides could go up to 12 points Leveraging for 10 project competitiveness also for 10 points Developer management experience is 15 on-site services seven Amenities is three and other factors up to five points Here's a snapshot of the Applications the complete applications that we received. We did receive five applications total. However, one was not complete So it was not fully ranked and presented to the ad hoc committee. These are the four applications that the ad hoc committee did review On top we have vigil light senior apartments in the rehab section And then under new construction we had three applications of which it's burbank avenue apartments 35 75 Mendocino Avenue phase three Also known as Laurel at perennial park And the keratoss homes phase two project So to go through these projects in order of the rank they received from their scoring First we have burbank avenue apartments. It is located at 1780 burbank avenue Here's a quick overview of what the proposed development would look like And some more information about the project So the developer is ws a burbank housing partners one lp, which is a partnership between burbank housing and wsa The recommended loan amount is 3.5 million dollars This is a new construction project with loan funds for acquisition and construction related costs I should note that is land acquisition The project composition is 21 bedroom 25 2 bedroom 18 3 bedroom multifamily housing development and it's targeted to families and those at risk of homelessness I should note actually i'm going to go back for a moment. Um, this project also has a Previous commitment from the loan from the housing authority of 16 project-based vouchers And about 9.8 million dollars in housing authority funds of which 5 million dollars is from the cdbg dr funding Okay, the affordability mix there are 16 units at 20 of area median income or am i Eight units at 30 13 at 40 14 units at 50 am i 12 units at 60 percent And one unrestricted managers unit As far as environmental factors there was a sequel review that has been completed for the master standard plan And the nipa environmental assessment document itself is complete The process is not quite complete because it still needs to be published pending the final award of funds Okay to get into the scoring This project received a readiness score of 5 out of 10 because it is entitled But building permits are not yet submitted those applications. I should say Affordability was 18 out of 20 based on the percentage am is listed in the previous slide Bedroom size was 8 out of 8 because there were 28 percent of the total units are three bedroom size Special needs the project received in 9 out of 12 with a quarter of the units dedicated for at risk of homelessness Leveraging was 5 out of 10 with the loan amount requested being 7.9 percent of the total development cost Competitiveness was 10 out of 10 because the hcd program accelerator funds have been awarded Making this project only need the 3.5 million dollar gap that they requested from the housing authority under developer and management experience 15 out of 15 Um, this project is partnered with burbank housing who is you know big in the area and has over 3 000 units managed With services, they also got a 7 out of 7 with a 0.2 FTE services coordinator on site and a significant list of on-site classes and services at the property As far as amenities goes the the site is within half a mile to transit and within a mile of retail groceries in a library Other factors Is 5 out of 5? This is where the prior funding from the housing authority comes into play with significant resources by this body already invested in the project And the project only needing this 3.5 million dollars to start construction Um, it is imperative to note that the hcd award of accelerator funds Is contingent on the project being fully funded within 60 days of that award date With this award made If it's still made by the housing authority today that would fill that gap allowing the project to receive Those accelerator funds and start construction And so the total score of this project was 85 percent The reason that we do percentages is because not all projects Have applicable or applicable for every category So the rehab projects are not scored out of 100 points. Those are scored out of only 90 points. So to make the scoring Competitive across the board. We look at the percentage of total points rather than just a straight number Okay, moving on to the second project ranked, which was the vigil light senior apartments Over here you can see The aerial of where this is located On long drive in santa rosa Here's a visual. This is an existing project and the application was for rehabilitation and acquisition related costs So a little bit about the developer. This is an application from pedaluma ecumenical properties also known as pep housing The recommended loan amount is 1.073 million This loan would be conditioned upon the Property receiving a t-cac or tax credit allocation committee award of tax credits The project applied in may of 2023 to t-cac And so this award would be contingent upon their rehabilitation award being successful This is an existing 49 unit senior development And loan funds like I mentioned would be covering acquisition related costs preservation and rehabilitation of the site On site there are 12 studios and 36 one bedroom units The affordability mix as proposed would include 24 units at 30 percent of ami and 24 units at 50 percent of ami with one unrestricted managers unit As far as environmental, this is exempt from sequel because it is rehabilitation of an existing project And a nipa review was completed. It is the project is categorically excluded As far as scoring goes as I talked about earlier the rehab projects are not subject to all categories So for this application the readiness category was not applicable So it was scored out of 90 points total with the readiness normally accounting for 10 points total So jumping down to affordability the project received an 18 out of 20 with half of the units at 30 percent of ami The bedroom size Two out of eight with a quarter of the units being studios and the rest being one bedroom Special needs was a 12 out of 12 because all of the units are targeted for seniors Leveraging was an eight out of 10 with the total amount of the loan being 3.46 requested from the total development cost Competitiveness was three out of 10 The included tkak application self score was not within the top 1 percent of the score possible Which is the criteria set aside in the NOFA to receive full points in that section The developer manager experience is also 15 out of 15. They have 16 least up properties in Sonoma county Services seven out of seven with a 0.4 fte services coordinator and significant on-site services for those residents Amenities three out of three with within half a mile to grocery retail in transit If you're familiar with the area the project actually is adjacent to The old longs drugs which is now a cvs and there's a safe way over there as well other factors This application did not meet any of the criteria For points in this section. So with a total score of 68 out of 90 that equates to 76 percent for their total score Moving on to the third ranked project, which was keratoss homes phase two This is the aerial of that site. You can see it's along a street and seventh With morgan street on the other side it is immediately adjacent to the keratoss homes phase one project that has recently been completed Here's a visual for you to imagine what it looks like And some project information. So the developer on this one will be burbank housing development corporation They will have a partnership with catholic charities for the service provisions on the site The recommended loan amount is 1.3 million which would be conditioned upon identification of a rental subsidy program For the 30 units that they are intending to serve the homeless population This is a new construction project with loan funds available for acquisition pre-development and construction related costs The site is anticipated to include 29 studios 27 one bedrooms 8 two-bedroom units It will be a multifamily housing development with 30 of the units targeted to households experiencing homelessness This is a mirror image to the keratoss homes phase one model that has already been funded through the housing authority affordability mix would be 30 units at 20 percent of am i and 33 units at 60 percent of am i With the unrestricted managers unit As far as environmental the sequa environmental impact report was completed for the whole site Which includes the keratoss village, which is the keratoss center keratoss homes phase one and phase two So that was completed in 2020 Ananipa environmental assessment was completed in 2021 To go through the point score here in the readiness category the project proceeded a 4 out of 10 It is fully entitled, but no building or grading permits have been submitted affordability was 18 out of 20 With 48 of the units at 20 percent of am i bedroom size is three out of eight because 46 of the units are studios Special needs was 11 out of 12 with 47 of the units dedicated for homeless households Leveraging nine out of 10 with the loan amount requested of 2.7 percent of the development cost Competitiveness was three out of 10 with the tkac application self score Also not within the top 1 percent of the scores possible Developer manager experience 15 out of 15 with this being a bourbon housing project Services four out of seven with there are significant on-site services for the homeless units and some on-site services for the non-targeted units Amenities three out of three The project site is located within half a mile to grocery retail transit and parks And then this is another project where the criteria for the other factors category as defined in the NOFA was not met So the total score was 70 out of 100 or 70 percent Okay, moving on to the fourth ranked project. This is mendicino avenue phase three. This is also known as laurel at perennial park Here's the aerials so you can see that the project is right there on mendicino avenue close to 101 and the fountain grove parkway frontage Here's a schematic of what the outside of the building would look like And some information about the project the developer is a partnership between bourbon housing development corporation in related california The recommended loan amount is roughly 2.5 million This is also a new construction projects with loan funds for pre-development and construction related costs The site would have 31 bedroom units all targeted to seniors The affordability mix proposed includes six units at 30 percent of ami 17 at 50 percent of ami seven units at 60 percent of ami As far as environmental the sequel sustainable communities environmental assistant was completed in 2020 And in nipah was completed in 2021 Going through the point scoring system on this one Readiness was a six out of 10. The project is fully entitled and building permits are under review Affordability was 10.8 out of 20 because 20 percent of the units are at 30 percent of ami bedroom size was one out of eight because all of the units are one bedroom Special needs 12 out of 12 all of the units are targeted to seniors Leveraging was two out of 10 with the loan amount requested being 14.27 percent of the total development cost Competitiveness was 10 out of 10 the t-cac application self-score is 100 of the total points possible Developer and manager experience also 15 out of 15 with those 3000 units developed and rehabbed by bourbon bank in Sonoma county Services six out of 10 with the point one fte services coordinator and significant on-site services for at least the first year of operation Amenities are three out of three with the project site located within half a mile to transit and medical and within one mile of parks and groceries Other factors this project did not have points for this category as well The total was 65.8 or 66 percent of total score being rounded All right, and then we have an overview here, and I apologize that it's a little bit hard to read um The intent of this slide is to give you an idea of where the recommended projects are lying within this city of scenarios of boundaries So starting at the top of the screen that top x is the 35 75 mendicino avenue, which is technically in the northeast quadrant um Same with the Next x on the right side of the screen. That's where the vigil light senior apartments is In the middle of the screen is caritas homes phase one And then in the lower left is where the bourbon avenue apartments project is located So the caritas homes project is really in the downtown core with vigil lights being northeast 35 75 mendicino being northeast but really more north and bourbon gavin is being southwest Okay, with that the recommendation it is recommended by the housing authority ad hoc review committee and the housing and community services department That the housing authority by resolutions approve conditional commitments of loan funds to one Wsa bourbon housing partners one lp in the amount of 3.5 million dollars per acquisition and construction related costs for bourbon gavin apartments located at 1780 bourbon gavin 2 pedaluma ecumenical properties dba pep housing in the amount of 1.07 3 5 83 for acquisition and rehabilitation costs for vigil light senior apartments located at 1945 long drive 3 Burbank housing development corporation in the amount of 1.3 million dollars for acquisition Pre-development and construction related costs for caritas homes phase two located at 367th street and for brj e housing partners lp In the amount of 2,585,610 dollars for Pre-development and construction related costs for 35 75 mendicino avenue phase three located at 35 75 mendicino avenue So with that I'd like to open it up to questions. I'm happy to answer any questions that the housing authority has commissioners any questions Mr. Daly My first question is Have you received any feedback from developers about the scoring system and their experiences being scored with their project? We open up that feedback process each time We do a no-fat and we have received some feedback from developers related to their specific projects across the board There hasn't been any consistent negative Or feedback that would suggest that anything substantially needs to change at this point My second question is with disaster relief I'm presuming that that's an extra set of funding Due to the disasters that we've gone for is that scheduled to be sunsetted at any time or or is this ongoing So the disaster related funding that the burbank avenue project has already received They received a conditional commitment commitment of five million dollars. That was one time funding That was awarded by the housing authority in 2021 So that was a one-time chunk of funding that has been committed to five projects The burbank avenue project is the last project that has received one of those dr funding commitments That has not started construction yet So an award today for the burbank avenue projects would allow that last dr project to begin construction So that would be all dr projects or just for this one That would allow burbank avenue to start construction The other dr projects were linda tunis the first phase of mendicino avenue the first phase of karatoss and On the cannery at rail road square So this is the last piece just for the burbank avenue project those other projects are already underway Thank you very much Question Yeah, first of all, thanks for putting this together And sitting down with chair lapenda vice chair and then the other day my main goal with this process was to make sure that it was objective as possible And to really understand the the point system and being able to go through and sort of defend all the different scores We spent the morning trying to shoot holes in this thing And I think it's a pretty good product and you guys obviously have a handle on On it and what goes into it. So I appreciate that um The one question I do have a couple of these were approved with restrictions That was a month ago. I'm wondering if those have been communicated and if that changes anything or if Folks feel like they're going to be able to meet those restrictions Yeah, thank you for the question. Um, and absolutely after the ad hoc committee met, um, the two projects that had um, additional conditions, um, the first being the vigil lights application With the condition to have that Uh teacac award and the second being the keratoss homes project to receive that operational subsidy We spoke with all developers after the initial ad hoc committee recommendation was developed and communicated that to them and Also communicated with the developer with the incomplete application to let them know the status of their application So at this point all developers have been communicated with and what we bring forward today Is what they understand as well Okay, but they didn't say anything about the restrictions that those are going to be a problem or anything like that You didn't get a sense of that. Okay, great That's all for me. Thanks commissioner No, no question Nicole I just want to say, uh For myself for the first time sitting through something like that Uh, we started at 10 30 in the morning and I don't think we got finished until about three o'clock in the afternoon um but Jeremy and I both asked Every question we could think of and you had every answer Like that. It was very impressive So I commend you and the staff for putting that whole thing together It was a great job and it was a great learning experience for us. So we look forward to it again. I think We'll now uh taking public comment from those participating via zoom Zoom hosts. Do you have any public comments from those attending the meeting via zoom? Vice chair lapena ask actually we'll start with in-person public comments If there's anyone in chambers that would like to make a public comment on item 11.1 Please go to one of the podiums in the upper tier of chambers Hello, you can state your name for the record if you so choose and then make a comment. You'll have three minutes Can you see the timer? Good afternoon. That's just what I'm alive. Good afternoon. Larry florn. I'm the ceo and president of urbank housing And we want to thank you first of all for the recommendations on the funding One of the things burbank does is prides itself in being in close communication with the local jurisdictions We work with and we believe that the projects that you're approving today are Priority for the city of santa rosa and we're happy to be part of the solutions here That was noted before the burbank avenue a part project was the last of the cdbg to dr projects to um Get underway. We received an award from The state of california an accelerator award in lieu of tax credits I don't know about two months ago and they made it clear that The three and a half million dollars that you're allocating here would make that commitment whole and we'd be able to move forward So with that we're going to commit to you that we'll begin construction We begin we expect to begin construction in the fall on that project In this the other two projects concerned you might You should be looking for an invitation in your inboxes for the grand opening of caritas one Which will be happening at the end of august. That's our no place like home project with permanent supportive housing And we're looking forward to doing Phase two which is desperately needed in this community to provide more permanent supportive housing And we're also quite proud of what is now called our laurel project Which is the former journey's end? We've actually moved. I think we're up to about nine people have moved in at this point We'll have 24 by the end of this month and this will allow us to complete the project these funds And 162 units to replace the 162 mobile homes that were burned in the 2017 Tubbs fire For us, it's a major milestone and we think for the city of santa rosa It's a major milestone to be able to welcome development at that site and the folks coming former residents I should also report that we as of now I believe we have 24 former residents who are Going through the process to be able to move into the new development. So Thank you You may state your name for the record if you so choose you'll have three minutes. Can you see the timer? I sure can. Okay. I'll be briefed actually pierce galinger waterstone residential We're partners with burbank housing on the burbank avenue apartment project. I just wanted to add one thing to larry's comments We are submitting for a second round plan check this week and so To larry's point about our schedule for starting construction in fall I just wanted to give that assurance that we are on track to do that And we'll get through the permitting process In time to secure our permits and satisfy the requirements of cdb gdr Which is to start construction by the end of this year So we're really grateful for your continued support and commitment to the project. And so thank you very much Chair lepana our vice chair lepana appears. We have no more in-person public comments. So Can we open for zoom now? Vice chair lepana, I see no hands raised in zoom at this time Clerk do we have any email public comments? The vice chair lepana. We have no email public comments for this item Okay, moving forward with with any of the housing commission commissioner authorities Like to motion make a motion regarding the first resolution for item 11.1 Just read the line item I would like to Motion to waive the reading of the text and to approve the resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa Approving a conditional commitment to loan funds in the amount of 3.5 million to wsa Burbank housing partners one LP for acquisition and construction related costs for burbank avenue apartments 118 burbank avenue santa rosa california apn 125 dash 361 dash 003 Is there a second? Commissioner downey seconds Chair will you call the roll Okay right well We'll now take a vote on this first resolution Uh, we will start with uh, commissioner commissioner smith I And then commissioner downey and then commissioner newton. Hi And then vice chair lepana. Hi Okay, uh, that motion passes with four eyes with commissioner. Oh our chair owen abstaining and commissioners McWhorter and raw houses are absent When any of the commissioners like to make a motion regarding the second resolution of item 11.1 I'd like to uh motion to waive the reading of the text and to approve the resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa Approving a conditional commitment of loan funds in the amount of 1,073 thousand 583 to peta luma He gave me like a tough word here use of medical properties PEP housing for acquisition preservation rehabilitation related costs for Vigil light apartments 1945 long drive santa rosa california apns 181-190-001 and 181-220-046 Is there a second? I second Call the vote please Okay, we'll now take a roll call vote on the second resolution And we will start with uh commissioner newton. Hi Commissioner smith I Commissioner downey and vice chair lepana. Hi Okay, uh that motion passes with four eyes with commission with chair owen abstaining And commissioners McWhorter and raw houses are absent Would any Of the housing authority commissioners like to make a motion regarding the third item of 11.1 Commissioner go ahead I would like to Motion to waive the reading of the text and to approve the resolution of the housing authority Of the city of santa rosa approving a commitment of loan funds in the amount of 1.3 million to burbank housing development corporation for acquisition Pre-development and construction related costs for caritas homes phase two 367th Avenue 7th street santa rosa california apn 010-040-020. Thank you. Is there a second? commissioner downey Chair could you call the vote Okay, we will do a roll call vote on the third resolution of this item and we will start with uh commissioner smith I And then commissioner downey Uh commissioner newton I And then vice chair lepana. Hi, okay That motion passes with four eyes with uh chair owen abstaining And commissioners raw houses and McWhorter absent A fourth resolution When any of the housing commissioners like to make a motion regarding the fourth resolution commissioner newton go ahead I'd like to motion to waive the reading of the text and to approve the resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa approving a commitment of loan funds in the amount of 2,585,610 to brj housing partners lp for pre-development construction-related costs for 35 75 mendicino avenue phase 3 35 75 Mendicino avenue santa rosa california apn 173-030-032 Is there a second commissioner second Okay, clerk call the roll please Okay, we will now do a roll call vote for the fourth resolution on this item We will start with commissioner newton I commissioner smith I commissioner downey And vice chair lepana i That motion passes with four eyes with uh chair owen abstaining And commissioners raw houses and McWhorter absent If there's nothing else, I think we can conclude our business for today. We are adjourned