 Chair Tess, I haven't seen that our interim director has joined the meeting yet. You might want to give it a moment. I will let you know when she comes into the meeting. Certainly. Thank you. She just joined the meeting right when I said that. It is 1.30, you can begin whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting of the December 13th, 2021, having a very special meeting to order. Due to the provisions of the Governor's Executive Orders N25-20 and N29-20, which suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act, and the order of the Health Officer of the County of Sonoma, who shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Housing Authority commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and or practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item number 5, public comment, or during our public hearing items will be able to do so by raising their hand, and will be given the ability to address the commission. As a matter of housekeeping, I'd like to remind commissioners to keep their audio on mute unless they are speaking. Commissioners out of the community themselves, staff will remain muted until needing to speak. As member of the public joined the meeting, you will be participating as an attendee. Your microphone and camera will be muted. Only today's panelists will be viewed during the meeting. If you are calling in from the telephone and choose to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda, for privacy concerns, the host will be renaming your view of the phone number to resident and the last four digits of your phone number. 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 our staff to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed. If necessary, we will also immediately end the meeting. Host, please explain the public comments to be heard at today's meeting. At each agenda item, the item is presented. The chair will ask for housing authority member comments and then open it up for public comment. The host in Zoom will be lowering all hands until public comment is open for the agenda item. Once the chair has called for public comment, the chair will announce for the public to raise their hand if they wish to speak on this specific agenda item. If you are calling in to listen to the meeting audibly, you can dial star nine to raise your hand. The host will then call on the public to have raised their hands. Public comment will be limited to three minutes and a timer will appear on the screen for the commission and the public to see. Once all live public comments have been heard, the meeting host 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 this meeting. Additionally, there is one public comment period on today's agenda to speak on non agenda matters item five. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on the agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. Thank you. I'd like to move forward on item two with a roll call. Okay, let's go ahead with a roll call. We'll start with Commissioner Burke. Yeah. Commissioner McWhorter. Here. Commissioner Rawhouser. Here. Commissioner LePenna. Here. Commissioner Downey and vice chair Owen and chair test. Here. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Downey and vice chair Owen. Thank you. We'll move on to item number three statements of abstention. Are there any commissioners wanting to make a statement of abstention hearing none will move forward with item number four study session. Today, there are no study session items on the agenda item five public comments. We are now taking public comments on item number five, not agenda matters. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda, which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine, raise your hand. Zoom host. Chair test. I see no hands raised at this time and there are no email comments. Thank you so much. Item number six item number six is draft minutes. We have minutes for the November 22 2021 meeting. Are there any changes? If none, the minutes are approved as prepared. Any comments? We will move hearing none will move forward and on to item number seven chairman commissioner reports. I would like to make a report on a meeting that occurred last week with the mayor and other chairs of various departments of the city of Santa Rosa. We each share our last month's agenda items that were covered or highlight them. At that meeting I reviewed the housing authorities monitoring monitoring procedure that we discussed last month. For low income compliance of our units. We also accepted acceptance of a grant award for $2.7 million for the home American rescue plan. I covered the Caritas lot realignment for phases one and two for Burbank housing units to be built for senior apartments. Other comments by those chairs included a notification that the Santa Rosa Creek cleanup committee has an ongoing cleanup scheduled every first Saturday of the month, which was interesting. There was a just suggestion that the new city manager be invited to this mayor and chairs meeting. And finally, there was discussion of a the pedestrian bridge has been talked about for a long time over highway one and one to accommodate East West passenger, excuse me, residents. There was a suggestion of incorporating an art feature in that yet to be designed finalized pedestrian over crossing and that completes my comment on that particular item. I'm moving forward now to committee reports. I would like to say that the ad hoc committee report, excuse me committee met a week or two ago. And the members attended were chair chairman Scott McOrder and chairman Yvonne raw house or Well, one of those, please make a comment on what occurred at that meeting. Yvonne I'll go first. You go first. Well, what we talked about was Just looking at the You know, the points and that each of them offer. I'm sorry if I'm not using my words. Well, I'm just kind of recovering from my COVID booster shot. So anyway, so I wrote some things down and one of the reasons we wanted to go with the her apartment is because we can have a 100% finance program because we'll have the The vets that have their vouchers and we can we can get the the program financed, whereas the senior project for bent for Burbank still needed a few million dollars to go into completion. And so having a completed project would be really nice to have and to also offer the This wonderful service to the vets because they're doing the onsite Services and then also their their their ability to get to transportation. And so that's what we talked about the to the the benefit and And then the benefits of each project and we felt we could best serve the community by helping the her project. Sure, testify may interject this item will be discussed further in 11.1 so if the housing authority can limit their conversation about this until we get to 11.1 that would be fantastic. Thank you. That's perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move on now to executive director reports and communication items. Number nine. Good afternoon chair test and members of the housing authority. I'm Megan passenger interim director of the housing authority. First I'd like to introduce our newest zoom host AC chappan I believe this is her first meeting filling in as a zoom host. So thank you, Lacey. A couple items to report out on today. First, the close the funding for 3575 Mendocino Avenue which is the site formerly known as the journeys and mobile home park closed on November 24. So that is a very important step in advancing this project. And hopefully all of you have received an email from Burbank housing for the rescheduled grand open groundbreaking ceremony which will be held on Friday, January 7 at 11am. If you haven't received that in your email please reach out to Steve Brown and we can we can assist you with getting the appropriate information. Second item is you may have read in the press democrat about the grand opening of the Windsor veterans village this is a 53 unit veterans facility. This was assisted with bash vouchers that are administered by our housing authority so we had a very important role in advancing this project. And that grand opening was held on December 6. And then finally an update on our emergency housing voucher program. We have 131 emergency housing vouchers that we were allocated. And to date we have received 82 referrals from the continuum of care of those 3234 have been issued vouchers and eight have leased up. So we are making a significant progress in moving 131 individuals into housing. That concludes my update and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions of staff on this particular item. Steve. Hi, thank you. Thanks for the presentation. So did staff attend the opening in the Windsor project. I just kind of curious if you were involved with that. The housing choice voucher staff did attend a few of the staff members who had worked on Lisa were able to attend that event. But I saw the article on the paper and I don't think I mentioned the involvement that we have and I'm glad that we had a presence there. I think that's it. Thank you. Welcome. I think the only comment that I would like to make is that is really good news about the emergency vouchers. One of the attendees at this mayor and chairs meeting had spoke briefly about a family under some sort of difficult circumstances and she was asking about can they get a voucher. And so I had referred her to Rebecca regarding the emergency vouchers. So I don't know whether that'll work out or not, but hopefully that will help that family if qualify. Thank you for that update, Megan. No problem. And just to add on to your comment, you know, certainly as members of the commission or just members of the community, if you do come in contact with individuals who are seeking information. Please refer them to us because while our waiting list may be closed. There are certainly other resources that we can direct people to. And we do receive inquiries on a regular basis. So we're happy to provide direction and assistance as we can. Thank you. Any further comments hearing none will move on item number 10 is consent items. There are no consent items on the particular agenda. So we'll move forward to item number 11 report items item number 11.1. Item number 11.1 is a report fall 2021 notice of funding availability funding recommendations and Nicole Rathbone the interim housing and community services manager will be making the presentation. And we'll just give a moment for the zoom host to get the presentation up on the screen. Thank you. All right, looks like we have our presentation up. Hi, good afternoon chair, test and commissioners Nicole Rathbone interim housing and community services manager presenting. Next slide please. There we go. So, today, before you, we have the funding recommendations for the fall 2021 notice of funding availability or no fa that was published on October 1st of this year. Applications were due on October 22nd. No fa was soliciting about $2.2 million in funds. 694,000 and change was from the permanent local housing allocation funds or PLH a as we will refer to them. And about 1.5 million were available in home investment partnership or home funds. Next slide. All right, so we had selection criteria as developed by a previous ad hoc committee that met specifically to review our point system and develop these criteria. The criteria used on this no fa included readiness for 10 points affordability for 20 points. And then we have the budget for the bedroom size for 8 points special needs set asides, which are basically how many, how much percentage of the property are set aside for special needs units at 12 points. Which is also can be considered the percentage of housing authority funds in the project versus other sources for 10 points project competitiveness and that's not necessarily project competitiveness with us. That is when we look at their other funding sources and what they are going to fund the project with completely how competitive are they going to be for those sources. And then there's development, I'm sorry, developer and manager experience, which is 15 points on site services for 7 amenities for 3 points and other factors that can be up to 5 points. So the total all these would be 100 points scored for each application. Next slide please. So from this no fa we received 2 applications, one for the herring veterans village and one for bourbon Avenue apartments. Neither one of these projects were eligible for the home funds, because for home funds you have to have already have commitment letters and commitments from all of your funding sources to develop the project. And you have to be able to get in consistent into construction to utilize the funds within 12 months. So both projects were evaluated and eligible for the PLH a program of which we had $694,325 available. Next slide please. So from the two applications received for her and veterans village that projects at 2149 Western Avenue. And we use units here as housing speak for the herring veterans village. It's for houses that are going to be developed. Each with 6 bedrooms and then there are accessory dwelling units on site also so I just want to make that clarification it's for single family houses that would have 32 bedrooms to house the veterans. They had requested $410,000 for their loan from the housing authority, and their score was 80 out of 100 so they were ranked first. Then the Burbank Avenue apartments project and that's at 1780 Burbank Avenue, also in the Southwest quadrant with 64 total units this would be more apartment style units like we typically see. And they had requested 2.2 million, which is the full amount of the NOFA, and they received a score of 78 out of 100 so they received the second scoring rank. And as we mentioned earlier and ad hoc review committee comprised of commissioners in the corner, Rahel's or and chair test met on November 18th, and they recommended the herring veterans village to receive the $410,000 that they have requested and Burbank Avenue would receive the remainder of the PLHA funds, which is $284,325. All right, next slide. And this is just an aerial we're going to go over each project with a little bit more detail for the group today and for the public. This is the herring veterans village aerial so you can see where the property lies. It's over there on Western Avenue, butting up to the houses on the other side on Park Meadow. So please. So the developer of this project is community housing Sonoma County. The recommended loan amount is $410,000. This is a new construction project with the loan funds that they have requested for acquisition of land costs and pre development related costs. So with some nomenclature we have the 32 studio units which is how we describe the units for housing funding related needs, but it would be for homes, each with an accessory dwelling unit so there'd be six bedrooms in each home, and the accessory dwelling unit would have two bedrooms. And so, adding all of those bedrooms up those are studios when we look at the funding commitments for affordable housing. And that's how we get to the 32 individual units so it would benefit 32 homeless veterans. Next slide please. So the affordability mix here. We have 31 units all at 30% am I which is typically the lowest level of affordability that we see so it's a very deep level of affordability for this project. One unrestricted managers unit. We had a bit of an environmental, we had a bit of a timing issue on this one, where the planning commission just met on December 9, which was after the date that we had drafted all of our documents. The project was approved through the planning commission on the ninth we just did not have time to incorporate that those, the results of that meeting into the agenda item that you see before you today. The project is compliant with SQL and was fully entitled as of last week. And the project is also exempt from the NEPA environmental assessment. These are pre development funds and PLHA does not trigger a NEPA environmental assessment. All right, next slide please. Okay, so if we go into the scoring for the project, their application and they received a three out of 10 in readiness, because at the time of application, the planning entitlements were still under review. For affordability they received a 20 out of 20 because 100% of the units were for households at 30% of am I or less so that's a very deep level of affordability. The bedroom size, they did receive a zero at eight because all of the units are studios and our, our categories allow more points or the larger size bedroom units. Special needs they received 12 out of 12 because all of the units are performing homeless veterans. Leveraging they received 10 points because the loan amount requested was only 3% of the total development cost. So they are expected to receive those funds because their self score on their application exceeds the minimum eligibility score required for that project. Under developer and management experience, they received a 14 out of 15. They do have completed projects in the region. We do have current compliance efforts underway on a couple of those projects to make sure that they are up to date on all the reporting requirements for onsite services. They did receive all of the points available in that service because there are significant onsite services for this formerly homeless veteran population. Amenities they received again three out of three with their within half a mile of a neighborhood perk in transit and just a little bit further to several other retail and grocery amenities in the neighborhood. Other factors they received a one out of five because they did have a prior housing authority loan of $285,000 from a few years ago. I think in the staff reports, it was listed as $235,000 but it was actually a $285,000 loan. So I just want to make that correction now while we're talking about it. Next slide please. Okay, and so for Burbank Avenue apartments, the other project application. Here's the aerial. It is relatively close to the Hearn Avenue project. You can see Hearn Avenue down there at the bottom of your screen with the Burbank Avenue apartments up towards the top. So they're at 1780 Burbank Avenue. Next slide please. The developer for this project is WSA Burbank Housing Partners 1 LP. That's a limited partnership between Burbank Housing and the Waterstone properties. The recommended loan amount is $284,325 which is the remainder of the PLHA program funds that we have available to award. This is also a new construction project with loan funds for construction related costs. And this development would be a more typical apartment style development that you would see in most of our projects with 64, I'm sorry 64 units. I'm sorry 64 units. It's a type of that should not say studio units. This is a multi-family housing development targeted to families and up to 10% of units for formerly homeless families or households. Next slide please. The affordability mix here is a little bit more varied than the other project. There are 36 units at 30% of AMI, 10 units at 40% of AMI, 9 units at 50% of AMI and 8 units at 60% of AMI plus that one unrestricted managers unit. The unit mix here is correct. The 21 bedroom units, 25 two bedroom units, 18 three bedroom units, and one two bedroom managers unit. The project is already entitled. It is exempt from sequel. And they do have a NEPA environmental assessment underway from prior federal funds in the project again the PLHA program does not trigger NEPA review. Next slide please. Okay, to go through the scoring here. The project received a four out of 10. They have submitted or I'm sorry, they are fully entitled, but they have not yet submitted an application for building permits. So that's where they fell on that scale. For affordability they received an 18 out of 20 a significant amount of the units are at 30% of AMI with the rest of the units trailing through the 40, 50 and 60% levels. For bedroom size, they received the full points here because 29% of their units are three bedroom size or larger. Special needs, they received a five out of 12 because 10% of the units are targeted to homeless or at risk households. Leveraging, they received a seven out of 10. The loan amount that they were requested of the 2.2 million was a 5.8% of the total development cost. With competitiveness, they received a 10 out of 10 with self scores for an upcoming funding application of MHP exceeding 100% of the total points possible, making them likely to receive those funds. The developer and management experience they received a 15 out of 15. They also received a 3 out of 3. They are within a half a mile of the neighborhood park in transit being in the same general location as the other project that shouldn't be surprising. They received a 5 out of 7. There are some on-site services and referrals to off-site services provided. They also received a 3 out of 3. They are within a half a mile of the neighborhood park in transit being in the same general location as the other project that shouldn't be surprising. There is also a grocery and retail amenities a little bit further in the neighborhood. And other factors, the project received a 3 out of 5. There is a prior housing authority loan in CDBG DR funds of $5 million. There are I believe 16 project-based vouchers in the project and over 30% of the development cost for this project is already committed. So they received this total score of 78 out of 100. All right, next slide please. Okay, and with that it is the recommendation is recommended by the housing authority ad hoc review committee and the housing and community services department. The housing authority by resolutions approve a conditional commitment of loan funds to community housing Sonoma County. In the amount of $410,000 for acquisition and pre-development related costs for the Hearn Veterans Village project located at 2149 Western Avenue. And a commitment of loan funds to WSA Burbank Housing Partners 1 LP in the amount of $284,325 for construction related costs for the Burbank Avenue. Project located at 1780 Burbank Avenue. Next slide. And that's one. So I just wanted to open up from any questions for the board from the board. I did want to also mention one other slight revision that came in after the time of publication on the resolution for the Hearn Veterans Project. There was a typo in the APNs and the title and in the third paragraph, the prefix for the APNs starts with the 134, not 131. So if approved today, that would be corrected to read 134 for the prefix for both APN numbers. So I'm happy to answer any questions of the board. Hi, I had one per comment. So on the scoring, if the Hearn project was given one point per bedroom or per unit, they'd have actually 88 points because they'd have eight points added to their score. Yeah, so I was just going to, I just noticed that as a, because they got no points at all per bedroom for, you know, so. Right. And with the point scoring system that was included with the NOFA. That is intentionally how the point scoring system for bedroom sizes set up with the preference for developments that include more than 25% of the units for three bedroom size units were larger. So this all studio units, yes, they do receive no points in that category as an offset though they do score better in the special needs category. Yeah, thank you. Commissioner Burke. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. And thanks to the committee for their work. I'm interested in. So, so kind of following up on commissioner browser's comments. So, would there have been an additional point for approvals given the action by the planning commission last week. So, at the time of application had the entitlements have that meeting already occurred. Yes. That project likely would have scored one or two points higher. But that wouldn't have changed the total outcome of the recommendation. Okay. Thank you for that. I had mentioned once before when the Hearn Avenue project was for the housing authority that I would like to have a site visit or a presentation by, you know, by the applicant. And I still like to see that happen. I know that, you know, part of this is new construction. But there were questions about onsite amenities and services versus offsite. And I would just be very much interested as one of the commissioners to get an update and to give a much broader presentation on what is happening currently on the site and what is proposed to happen in the future on the site. So I don't know if there's other commissioners interested in that. That would be one of my comments. And also on was it was the last Thursday night the planning commission met. I think that was the night there. I understand there was opposition to the project. And I kind of interested, Nicole, maybe if you can kind of summarize what some of the opposition was just so that we would have a better idea about what some of the concerns were that were raised by the adjacent members of the community. And then you've answered the question about the home plans. I was trying to remember what the limitations were for that. But thank you. And also interested in knowing since I worked with you, Nicole, and with Commissioner on on the on the updated application ranking system. Kind of what your views were on how it worked. And are there and this doesn't have to be today because that's probably a different topic. But what what worked well and what maybe needs to be modified for our next round. So items such as that. So those are my comments and kind of return to maybe the opposition to the project and then I'd be interested in how we might proceed on a site visit and also kind of a follow up on ways to improve our radiant ranking system. Thank you. Sure. And I believe your your comments about follow up on how this point scoring system went would probably be more appropriate when we come in the next ad hoc review to go over the point scoring system for the next effort that we go out for. But in as a general comment, you know, it every time we do this it gets better and better. And then there's always going to be room for improvement as well. On the on the bedroom size. Obviously, if you propose studios, you don't do well. Is that is there a comfort level with that going future. I don't expect an answer right now, but that would be one of the things that I would think that maybe staff and the housing authority board members might be thinking about. Okay. And your other question, Commissioner Burke about the general feedback from the neighborhood on last week's planning commission meeting. The general comments that I was I was attending that meeting in case any questions came up around the funding or the need for review. The general comments that came up from the neighborhood in opposition of the project were related to the homes that are being built those the four single family residences proposed to be built are two two-story. And the neighborhood, the neighbors were concerned that most of the other houses on that street or single story. However, that there is a height maximum of 35 feet for any houses that are built in that neighborhood and there would be nothing to say prevent a different neighbor from doing an add on or building a two story home on one of the parcels there either way. There were no, there was no opposition to the use of the site. It's a site that or the use is approved by right. And so it was mostly about the two story aspect of these four homes that are proposed to be built. Thank you. Any other comments. Seeing and I would just like to add a couple of comments. Having been on the ad hoc committee meeting for these two projects. I believe that the rating and ranking system that we used was fairly successful. You know, these two projects are quite different. We're trying to compare for favor to determine which would be funded. If multifamily housing unit or studio units for homeless veterans to totally different projects. And I believe that the rating and ranking system that was prepared for this particular ad hoc meeting certainly stood the test of balanced affordability and balanced decisions. And we both we agreed that both projects were good projects. And the scoring favored her and veterans village. And I believe our ad hoc committee fully supported both of those projects as outlined by staff. I now see commissioner LaPenna, you have a question. Yeah. I've been a veteran myself from 12 years in the National Guard. I just was wondering since we're talking about veterans housing here. What other veterans units do we have in the system currently or projected online. I'd be happy to take a shot at that. So we have a couple of projects that are distinctly for veterans. We have the Benton veterans village which is by the same developer community housing of Sonoma County. That's located on the corner of Benton Street and North and it's a reuse of a historic city fire station from the 30s. We have that vouchers which are veteran specific vouchers and the Windsor veterans village that I mentioned in my update. We have 53 vast units there or bash vouchers available to those clients, and I believe our bash pool of vouchers overall is about three to 400. So in addition to distinct projects like Benton veterans village, hopefully her and veterans village and then also there is the main component of the her insights, which the housing authority provided a rehab loan to I believe that's 12 beds, specifically as well. And then I saw Rebecca space pop up really quickly. So certainly if I misspoke jump on in Rebecca. No, you didn't misspeak at all. Thank you. Yes, you're correct. We have the 53 project based bash units in Windsor. We have 10 additional project based bash units in the town of Sonoma and another project that recently opened last summer this summer and Benton veterans village as Megan mentioned and we have other projects in the pipeline and a total of 414 hud bash vouchers currently. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to add just one more comment. Regarding the scheduling a site visit to her and veterans village, a number of people have thought that would be a good idea. And there is going to be a site visit early on next year. And I just wanted to assure Commissioner Burke that that will be happening. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. I'm going to move on to public comments. We're now taking public comments on item 11.1. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Our first public comment comes from Craig. Craig, if you would like, you can state your name for the record and then make your public comment. Thank you very much. My name is Craig and my company is a consultant project managers for community housing Sonoma County. We are looking forward to the application cycle for the city that funding next year and this funding award would make a big difference in terms of our competitiveness. Commissioner Burke and others, we would welcome a site visit for you to see the current operations and her house owned by community housing Sonoma County and operated by nations finance. And then we'd also like to offer in response to Commissioner LePenna's comment that the community housing Sonoma County has also developed 14 units of veterans at the county administrative center. The community housing Sonoma County and nations finance and partnership have lots of experience with providing housing for homeless deaths. And we're very much looking forward to adding her next village as another opportunity for those to have a beautiful affordable and safe place to live. I would just mention that the planning commission vote to support from that village at the planning commission meeting last week was unanimous five to nothing. And again, we're appreciative of the city's support of the project, both from planning and funding perspective. Those are my comments. Chair test I see no other hands raised at this time. Thank you. So we have before us two resolutions on this particular item. The first resolution, they're going to be voted on separately. And as noted by staff today on the her veterans village, the AP numbers, which start with 131 will now be 134. So do I hear a motion in the second. Excuse me, I'm sorry commissioners I'd like to just interject for a moment I'm Ashley Crocker assistant city attorney I've met some of you before and I'm just sitting in for Jeff work this afternoon. And I wanted to follow up on something that staff had mentioned and you, you all have touched on in the presentation that the planning commission did take action on December 9 to approve the environmental documents. So I'd like to just make a clarification in the 1234 in the fifth whereas in your her veterans village resolution to clarify that on December 9, the planning commission took action to adopt the addendum to the Roseland area, the basketball road specific plan environmental environmental impact report. So that would just be to clarify the action has actually been taken, whereas it was previously written prior to the action and the action was pending so if we could also include that clarification. If that's agreeable, then whichever of you reads the resolution. You can simply just read the resolution and then state as revised by the city attorney's office to reflect the planning commissions action on December 9 or something to that effect. Thank you. Thank you Ashley that was very good. Good information. I see commissioner Burke raised his hand. Yes, I would be happy to make a motion. It would be the resolution. My motion would be 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 $410,000 to community housing Sonoma County for acquisition and pre development related costs for the her veterans village project. I have the first one 49 western Avenue. With the AP members being corrected to have the first one read 134 and then also to. In my motion, seek approval to have the fifth whereas I think it was to indicate that the planning commission. Approved. review to make the modifications as presented by the city attorney's office. If hopefully that'll suffice. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have a second? Commissioner LaPenna, you're muted, unfortunately. Commissioner LaPenna, we can't hear you. Can you hear me now? Now we can, yes. Okay. For some reason, my screen froze for a second, but as a veteran, I'd like to second that. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Any other comments? Clark, can you please call the roll? I can. So we'll go ahead and do a vote on this resolution. I'd like to start with Commissioner Burke. Aye. And then Commissioner LaPenna. Aye. And then Commissioner Rawhouser. Aye. Commissioner McWhorter. Aye. And then Chair Test. Aye. Okay. Let the record show that motion passes, that resolution passes with five ayes with both Commissioner Downey and Commissioner Vice-Chair Owen Absent. Thank you. So we are going now to the second resolution, which involves the Burbank Avenue Apartments. Do we have a motion for that resolution? Commissioner LaPenna, would you like to make a motion? Not. My screen just froze again. Something's been on. I would be happy to, but I would defer to members of the committee if they prefer to do that, whichever is fine with me. Okay. I would. I just don't know the proper language to use. Would you like me to do that? I'd be happy to do that. Yeah. So I would like to propose a motion. A resolution of the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Rosa approving a commitment of loan funds in the amount of $284,325 to WSA Burbank Housing Partners 1 LP for construction-related costs for Burbank Avenue Apartments projects, 1780 Burbank Avenue, APN 126-361-003, and waive the reading of the text. We have a second. I will second the motion. Thank you. Okay, just one moment and I will do the vote. Okay, we will go ahead and do a roll call vote on this resolution. We will start with Commissioner Burke. Aye. And then Commissioner Rawhouser. Aye. Commissioner McWhorter. Commissioner LaPenna. Aye. And Chair Test. Aye. Let's make sure that that motion passes with five ayes with Commissioner Downey and Vice Chair Owen Absent. Thank you. We'll now move on to item 11.2. All right, item 11.2 is a report up to Housing and Choice Voucher Administrative Plan for the addition of emergency housing voucher program policies. Rebecca Lane, Housing and Community Services Manager will be presenting. And Zoom host, can you please bring up the presentation? Good afternoon, Chair Test and Housing Authority Commissioners. And thank you, Megan, for the introduction. My name is Rebecca Lane and I'm the Housing and Community Services Manager overseeing the Housing Choice Voucher Program for the City of Santa Rosa. Today, I'll be presenting an update to the Administrative Plan for the Housing Choice Voucher Program incorporating and formally adopting the federal rules and regulations that guide the new emergency housing voucher program. Next slide, please. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is a federally funded rental assistance program, which is administered by local jurisdictions. The program rules are codified in Chapter 24, Part 982 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations allow for limited decision making at the local level as to the management of the program based on local needs and conditions. For example, the Housing Authority recently adopted a local decision to allow project-based vouchers to exceed 20% of Santa Rosa's voucher portfolio only if the excess units are designated for families who've experienced homelessness or for veterans and their families. This decision was based on local needs and adopted after review at a public meeting and incorporated into the Administrative Plan. The Administrative Plan is the major policy document that outlines these local decisions and broadly explains the federal regulations that guide the program. It is a required element for any jurisdiction administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program. To produce the document, we employ the service of a national consulting firm, NAN-McKay and Associates, for a model Administrative Plan that includes all the required elements of the Administrative Plan and allows us to clearly identify the local decision points. Next slide, please. As you are familiar, the Emergency Housing Voucher Program or EHP Program is a new special purpose voucher program that was authorized under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. On May 10th, 2021, Santa Rosa was invited to participate and accepted 131 vouchers from HUD. The County of Sonoma is also participating in the EHP program and has received 153 emergency housing vouchers. The EHP program was designed as a partnership between the Housing Authority and the Continuum of Care, which is the local agency that oversees a jurisdiction's homeless services. Eligibility for the program is limited to individuals and families experiencing homelessness, at risk of homelessness, persons who are fleeing domestic violence, and households who were recently homeless and require ongoing rental assistance to prevent them from becoming homeless again. Next slide, please. The EHP program regulations were issued under HUD's PIH notice 2021-15 and are described in the proposed Chapter 19 of the Administrative Plan. Any element where local policy decisions were allowed have been made in consultation with the Sonoma County Continuum of Care as required under the notice. And the formal adoption of the Administrative Plan policies reflect the current practices of the EHP program. Accept as identified in Chapter 19 of the Administrative Plan, the EHP program will follow the regulations of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. It is anticipated that as the program evolves, updates to the Administrative Plan may be necessary, which would be brought to you at a future date. Next slide, please. At this time, it is recommended by the Department of Housing and Community Services that the Housing Authority, by resolution, adopt the addition of Chapter 19, Emergency Housing Vouchers, to the Housing Choice Voucher Administrative Plan. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you, Rebecca. This is good news. Any questions of staff? Commissioner Rawhouser, you're muted. Are these 131, are they new vouchers that are being added to our inventory? They are, yeah. Oh, lovely. Commissioner Burke? Just interested if the county's allocation, are they able to be used anywhere in the county with the exception of the City of Santa Rosa, or is there more flexibility for those vouchers? That's a great question. Thank you. Yes, so our two Housing Authorities have a Memorandum of Understanding that relates to these special purpose vouchers. So we have an agreement, and it's really for the sake of simplicity for the clients as well as the staff that we will administer our special purpose vouchers throughout the county. So that's how we have bash vouchers in places like Windsor. And this also we've adopted, or we've updated rather that MOU to reflect that we will allow each Housing Authority to administer outside of their own jurisdiction if that's necessary for this program, which again is just simplifying the process and making sure it proceeds expeditiously as required by the program. So if a household is referred to Santa Rosa and we perform their initial eligibility screening and issue them the voucher, if it turns out that the unit that they find and want to rent is outside of the Santa Rosa City limits, we'll still be able to continue working with that family. And it works the same way per Sonoma County as well. Thank you for that. Is there some kind of a process of helping to ensure that the vouchers are distributed kind of proportionately throughout the county? Well, the continuum of care under the PIH notice outlining this program, it's the continuum of care policy decisions to determine the target populations for the vouchers and determine the referral process. So at this point, both Housing Authorities have referrals coming from all over the county. Roughly we started out thinking that Santa Rosa agencies, homeless service agencies that are serving Santa Rosa primarily might primarily refer to the Santa Rosa Housing Authority. But as it's gone on since the referrals started after the program began, we've noticed there is a little bit more crossover between the referrals. So we are tracking the zip code or the location based on zip code that the family has been referred from. So if they're actively homeless, then that might be based on a mailing address such as 600 Morgan Street, which is the homeless services shelter that offers mailboxes for residents to use. So we are tracking from where the referral has come and then also where the family is leasing up. So we do have that information to be able to present once more families start leasing up. That's good to hear. And could there be a process of reporting how those vouchers are utilized throughout the county at some point in time, six months intervals or whatever that would, to me, that would be very important. And I'm one of seven members of the board. So maybe not everybody agrees with that, but that would be very helpful to me. Yes, absolutely. We are providing quarterly updates to the continuum of care. Both housing authorities present that information to the continuum of care. And I'm happy to also bring that information to the housing authority on the same schedule if you prefer or whatever works best for the chair and the commission. Quarterly would be even better for my perspective. Any other questions from the commissioners? I have a question, Rebecca. What is the timeframe from the time that someone is referred for an emergency vouchers on the current ones that we have? Is it taking in general before they're actually able to get into an affordable unit? That's a very case-by-case answer. At this point, we have eight families least. And of those families, a few of them, we stop within a week of being referred to the housing authority. We currently have 34 families who are out searching. And when I say families, I mean individuals and families. So it could be individual as well. So we have 34 vouchers that are currently being, that are out on the street. So it really just depends on where the person is at at the time that they're referred. And so far as their case management is concerned with the homeless service agency that's providing services, whether they've got something lined up already or if they need to be searching from the, they're just starting their search. But we are also tracking that data. So I'll be able to report that out as well. That sounds good. And the new set of emergency vouchers, how soon will it take staff to get up and running on this? Well, the program is already well underway on many of the HUD trainings that we've participated in. I've heard the phrase building the plane while flying it. And that's a little unusual coming from the federal government. But it is program because it was authorized under the American Rescue Plan. And it's an emergency program. We have been able to work to implement the program under the PIH notice rules that are now going to be incorporated into the administrative plan. So the program is well underway. As Megan mentioned in the director's report, we have the majority or working towards having the majority of the number of referrals that we can accept. So it's going. Good, thank you. Commissioner McWhorter, you have a question or comment? Just a thought, yeah, actually a question. I was just curious, is there or, okay, is there or is there any kind of support or aftercare for the families or the individuals once they move in? Yes, absolutely. It's another great question. Thank you, Commissioner McWhorter. The program regulations, the AHV program regulations do require that the housing authority ensures that those types of services are, in fact, being provided. And so our local memorandum of understanding between the continuum of care and the housing authority identifies that the service providers who are agreeing to work with the program are going to provide ongoing housing stabilization services after a family visit is done. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll move on to public comments on item number 11.2. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Chair Testa, see no hands raised at this time. Thank you. So we have a resolution before us. Is there a motion to approve item 11.2? Any motion from any commissioner? I make a motion, we approve item 11.2. And would you like me to read the text of that motion? Yeah, please. Okay, motion to approve the resolution of the housing authority of the city of Santa Rosa updating the housing choice voucher program administrative plan for the addition of emergency housing voucher program policies. We have a second. I second that motion. Thank you. Okay, then we will go ahead and take a vote on this resolution. We will start with Commissioner LePenna and then Commissioner Rawhouser. Aye. Commissioner McWhorter, Commissioner Burke. Commissioner Burke, I commuted. Sometimes my spare works and sometimes it doesn't. Aye. And then Chair Testa. Aye. That resolution passes with five ayes with Commissioner Downey and Vice Chair Owen absent. Thank you. We're at the end of our agenda for today, item 12, adjournment. I'd like to wish everybody happy holidays and stay healthy, stay warm. And thank goodness we have rain. Thank you, same to you. Thank you. Very great. Thank you staff. Thank you everyone. Happy holidays to everyone.