 Chair Oh, and it looks like we have all staff members and commissioners present and it is 130 so we can start whenever you're ready Thank you So first want to start with some housekeeping Which is to remind commissioners to keep their audio on mute unless they're speaking Commissioners other than the chair can mute themselves Staff will remain muted until needing to speak All members of the public join the meeting you are participants 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're calling in from a telephone and shoot to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda The privacy concerns the host will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident in the last four digits of your phone number As a reminder the city of Santa Rosa's community creating a state and inclusive environment Dream from disruption We will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions and our well-staffed or monitor that everyone is participating respectfully Or they will be removed. If necessary, we will immediately end the meeting Or can you please explain how public comments will be heard today at today's meeting? Of course 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 the 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 who have raised their hands Public comment will be limited to three minutes and a timer will appear on the screen for the commission and 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 the meeting Additionally, there is one public comment period on today's agenda to speak on non-agenda matters item eight This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda But are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority Thank you and uh I'd like to have an announcement on the roll call please All uh members of the commission are present Thank you. Is there any report if any on closed sessions? Yes, thank you. So the housing authority met in closed session on matter 3.1 conference with real property negotiator And um direction was given to the uh agency negotiator Thank you. Uh, Mr. Burr The next item is item six, which is states and statements of abstention Are there any commissioners that will be abstaining from items today? Not hearing from the other commissions. I will be abstaining from items reporting items of 14 just one moment 14.1 and 14.2 um My work with exchange bank in working with their affordable housing clients precludes me from being part of that discussion And so therefore I am abstaining from those two items And at that time, um I will be getting off this call and handing over the reins to a vice chair cast chairman on Yes, sir. I will not be abstaining from any item on the agenda today but I didn't want to say that I explored a question that I had with jeff perk and the city attorney's office And it has to do with the question involved the fact that I serve As a president of a non-profit board that owns vigil light senior apartments in santa rosa and The board vigil light board has a contract currently with burbank housing their management corporation arm And also we're going to purchase agreement with pep For them to purchase that property and and that The process that led to that started with the solicitation for proposals In 2020 kind of midway through 2020 and from the several Proposals that were received the board chose pep to purchase. And so we're in the purchase agreement phase Sale has not been completed So so I received no income being a member of the non-profit board and after Discussions with jeff perk. I determined that I could participate in a fair and unbiased manner And the items on to all items on today's agenda including 14.1 and 14.2. So I just wanted to For transparency sake Provide that information. Thank you Thank you commissioner Burke and I For the clarification and also restating that You worked with the city attorney's office to come to that determination So I appreciate that The next item is Item seven, which is a study session my understanding is that we do not there is no study session And therefore we move to item eight, which is public items on non-agenda items We're now taking public comments on item eight non-agenda items This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda Which are but 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 are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand And I will turn over to our clerk to For this this process Thank you chair owen a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers The first speaker will be acknowledged and invited to speak Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown or at the conclusion of your comments And chair owen at this time. I see no hands raised We also received no email public comment on this item Thank you So moving on from public comments item eight will go to item nine Which is the approval of the minutes And my understanding is that uh, there is no vote that needs to happen for the approval of the December 14th minutes We just acknowledge that they are being approved. Is that correct jimper? Uh, if nobody has any proposed edits they can be approved by unanimous consent No comments or questions here Any other commissioners have comments I wasn't there so I don't know how that should be handled You can abstain So I'm not hearing any other comments Approval of the December 14th minutes by unanimous consent in abstention from commissioner downy I'm moving on to item 10, which is the chairman's commissioner reports Are there any uh chair or commissioner reports at this time? Are there and then we also have an opportunity for public comment on this if there's Any any public comments on uh item 10 as the court where there's any public comment I see no hands raised chair on And we received no email public comment Thank you very much. Uh, similar on item 11, which is the committee reports Are asked for in their committee reports at this time And hearing none again following process Any public comments on item 11? Uh, that's the court version of public comment I see no hands raised chair oan. We also received no email public comment Okay, thank you Moving on to item 10. What's the executive director reports and communication items? Um, excuse there any executive director reports Good afternoon chair oan. I am Megan vassinger interim director of housing and community services Item 12.1 on the executive director and communications Are the notification that we are accepting applications for housing authority commissioner vacancies The housing authority is now accepting applications for two commissioner vacancies. The applications can be found online There is a link in the agenda if there are interested parties that are listening or watching And a hard copy can be obtained if you contact steve brown at seven zero seven five four three four three one zero And just for the public's benefit The purpose of the housing authority is to ensure adequate decent safe and sanitary housing for qualified people within saneroza Consistent with federal state and local laws The housing authority primarily consists of the saneroza housing trust And rental assistance programs both of which are responsible for providing quality and affordability The members of the housing authority Commit funds to developers for new affordable units administer contracts with developers for Units pursuant to the city's housing housing allocation plan And provide rental assistance to approximately 2000 families with funds that are provided by the u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development In addition to the two commissioner vacancies The section 8 housing choice voucher program is also soliciting For tenant commissioners we have two tenant commissioners that are selected from our participants And that inquiry is currently being conducted and we are hopeful we'll have some new tenant commissioners in the near future I'd be happy to answer any questions Any questions from commissioners? Megan I do have a question. So it just for We have Four five commissioners now And we have the total was seven with those two that that we are looking for our tenant commissioners. Is that correct? so we Do not have we currently do not have tenant commissioners that are participating in the housing authority and the current terms for commissioner downy and commissioner olson ended at the end of 2020 they will they can and will continue to serve until replacements are confirmed Okay, thank you Moving on to item 12.2 And i'll again turn it over to uh to megan to To read and present uh item two 12.2 12.2 is the housing authority fiscal year 2020 2021 First quarter financial report the report will be presented by kate gold fine administrative services officer Good afternoon commissioners. This is kate gold fine administrative services officer This is a communication item that's given for your information. So I don't have a presentation, but i'm happy to answer any questions you may have In the commissioners have questions on the memorandum. It's a day-to-day client on the C1 financial report uh hearing on i um kate. I do have some questions. So this is the period for uh july 1 to september 31st quarter Correct and the items that you are showing in um Budget and expended so that what you are showing is the annual annual budget? I know Correct. So the current budget is the the annual budget the amount you designated for that purpose And then the dollar amount expended and dollar amount committed. So expended is what's actually been spent and committed is what has been um in general Committed to developers for affordable housing projects, but we do have some other conferences in there The vast majority is loan product So the housing assistance Payments the voucher program is that's the 32.4 million for the budget. Is that correct? Correct So normally if you're looking at that being on a straight line basis in the first quarter We would have 75 remaining, but we have 79 remaining. Is there a reason why? It doesn't run on a straight line basis or was there not as many as much money expended the first quarters that we you anticipated So the budget is dependent on every voucher being filled Every voucher being leased up and expended at a certain amount And we don't generally don't have all vouchers leased up. So with a client in a unit Every month of every year In general, it's the HUD that i rebecca may need to step in here, but in general we don't run Our hud bash clients are not leased up at 100 So that's in general the reason that we are lower than our Exact budgeted expenditure Does that make sense? Yeah, so and at 32 million dollars That is the amount that HUD is has provided for the year Yes That's the amount that we have budgeted for the year That is our best guess of what we think our amount of vouchers will expend during the year HUD is similar to that amount, but they Give us our money on Based on our actual expenses Looking back to prior months. So this is our best estimate of what that amount is going to be during the year And it may differ slightly depending on what we actually spend How has has that Either the project based vouchers or the housing choice vouchers i'll call them a burn rate a run rate um Been expended when we've gone through covid times and unemployment where People receiving those vouchers. These are project based or housing choice Are not making as much as they Were because they were laid off or dropped And and how has our burn rate been affected In terms of those vouchers being utilized not not the number of vouchers, but if they're based upon it Uh an applicant making paying 30 percent of their gross toward their rent And they're dropped to two days a week versus four days a week because they're where their employment is shut down or reduced hours Something that's been happening a lot. We all aware our are all aware of that The voucher program would pick up the difference. Is that correct? To get to the stipulated rent That's that's correct. Um, chero and thank you. This is rebecca lane manager of the housing choice voucher program And what you're saying is correct. Um under the regulations if a family who's participating in the program reports a decrease in their income Then we recalculate the housing authority and tenant portions of rent and that did result and has resulted And will continue to Result in an increase in our per unit cost So that's the amount of money that we're spending per voucher or per household Towards the rent. So we did see an increase beginning with march and april recertifications as those were being requested on average we Saw for several months in a row about twice as many We require for interim recertifications or recalculations as we would have in a normal year Some of that has studied out over time and so we're Starting to see not only returns to employment or other sources of income that are Counted towards the the rent We're we're seeing the the numbers study out a little bit and so We do continue to Have underutilization as kate mentioned in part due to the VA's the bash program There's strategies around case management of those vouchers that sometimes results in underleasing And we also it's just a frankly challenging population to house the the turnover rate on those vouchers tends to be higher than the non-bash vouchers Variety of reasons That's 414 vouchers of our total of 1903. So that does tend to Have an effect on our overall budget but as kate has mentioned these are Costs that are reimbursed to us based on actual expenditures And so the way that we're doing our budget is just making projections as best as we can Based on the fair market rents that we know How we're adjusting those based on our trends in per unit costs You thank you. Do you have metrics that Basically would state What the fair market rent is and what the voucher either project based or housing choice pays as a percentage of that fair market rent You does the housing authority track that? what we track our per unit costs, uh, we track those by voucher category as well And then we track our overall Utilization as well as our utilization within voucher category such as a bash and project based I just I think it'd be interesting to stay to To make the math easy if the fair market rent was a thousand and the tenant was paying 300 Therefore the voucher program was paying 70 percent of fair market to how that is fluctuated during these interesting times we were going through and then also Um Weds and in a uh in a multi-family world as an owner you would look as a vacancy rate So the voucher is a thousand and you're using 95 you would have a five percent vacancy It just kind of something in that fashion to have an understanding of what's being used and what's What's not being used as a metric to see how those fluctuate. Does that track any similar sort of manner? Um, not specifically as it as you're describing, but we do get to Those trends. Yes The vacancy rate if you're looking at multi-family housing would be roughly equivalent to our utilization rate Um, which is trending at about 93 percent right now Okay We'll follow a question if I may Commissioner burr Thanks, so you you you've answered that question and the annotated notes in the report really help Explain the different categories. Uh, so are we still able to? essentially over commit With the assumption that if we go up five percent or eight percent or whatever That we're not going to have to turn anybody away and still fully utilize the resources that we have from HUD for the vouchers So I'll answer and then I'll let Kate answer as well the second half of the question So, um, we are not permitted under the regulations to overleast So if we have 1903 vouchers, that's the maximum number of vouchers that we can lease up at any time But since our costs tend to trend over, um, like we're spending all of our budget for You know the the amount of vouchers that we have available then we end up Not we're we're using our budget, but not necessarily always hitting 100 percent of our leasing because of the costs associated with the per unit voucher spending And I'll let Kate I think you explained that well and can commission commissioner burr. Can you Ask again what you the second part of that question Well, it's my recollection that You you mentioned the 1900 hour many we we have Authorized and at one time my understanding and my recollection may be may be faulty here But that we were able to go above that with the anticipation that People would be Moving out of units and you know So we could kind of over commit in terms of release to get as close to 100 percent as possible at the end of the year And the way you explain it you can't go over the number But the amount of money that we have available for rents is is is more flexible And so Is that being fully you I mean 93 percent is very good, but you know 100 percent would be better So what are we doing? yes So the when I say that we can't go over the 1900 and three vouchers that we have under contract with HUD That's looking at a calendar year or a fiscal year basis. And so these are numbers that we track On at least a monthly basis and and often it's it's more frequently than that so that we can Determine if we should issue new vouchers How many vouchers we should issue if we're doing that? and and what our continued costs are based on Predictions like how long it takes a new family to lease up onto the program Once they receive their vouchers, so there's a lot of different metrics that we track in order to make sure that we are hitting both the Leasing and the spending targets at the right level thank you, um and I assume that It's it's a trend been good in terms of utilization. Uh, I mean are we kind of at a high point or where are we? You know over the last couple of years Um, over the last couple of years. Um, it has been lower utilization as a result of higher costs and because the per unit costs have been Uh trending higher than the fair market rents. Uh, we are able to make some adjustments based on that. Um, but over the last A few years we have um Not been able to utilize all of the vouchers that we have available because of limits on the budget side And those are corrections that we can make but it it happens very slowly over time as Kate described because we're reimbursed for our actual costs So as we're making these adjustments, um Uh, we get a little bit more budget and then we can Weak up a few more families. Um, and so it takes time to get to full utilization after you've had impacts of Spikes in rent as we have seen in california. Um, and and this is a this is a issue that many housing authorities have particularly in the bay area. Um, so we are Getting to higher utilization over time even with the the challenges of the pandemic we did be, um A little bit of a um in terms of if people were leaving housing, um, you know being able to find new housing But we're we're seeing those numbers stabilized as well Thanks Rebecca. Thanks Kate Mr. Downey you had a question Yeah, my question is, um How close the fair market value Our land was making by accepting section eight vouchers Or our land was having to take a discount to accept Section eight voucher holders No, at this point, we're actually feeling quite good about our, um, our rates. Um, our payment standards is the local adjustments that we make to the Pud to fair market rents. Um, so at this point we're, um, using 110 percent of the fair market rents to, uh, project our payment standards and we are seeing that, um Those are trending with the actual market rents that we track here for the city of san rosa So we're right in line with them Any other Questions from the commissioners I I do have a question on the funding sources. This is page two the memorandum that was put through So one of the items that That happens is when there is a deed Signed by or recorded a fee gets paid for for housing Anytime there's a real estate transaction is that in our In the funding sources figures someplace And maybe Megan you can maybe answer You're you're on mute There you go There are I'll do it. It's fine. I know, right? There are two sources. So there's the real property transfer tax which comes to The housing authorities budget, uh, as a transfer from the city's general fund So that comes into The resources that are made available to the the housing trust and also to homeless and you'll see that just built into the loan products Line item and then the other source is statewide the sp2 funding And that will be coming to the housing authority Hopefully in the near future in terms of an allocation So we'll receive what the state has identified as an entitlement allocation and I believe off the top of my head It's about $700,000 a year The money that goes from the transfer tax to this it goes in the general fund first and then to the housing authority That's correct. So you can see it. It's it's a transfer in So it's um, so is that the number? That is and that Go ahead that transfer in number is is that 100 of the tax or what numbers? What percentage is that from the general what's received in the general fund? so, um, the city council has a policy which raises the amount of The real property transfer tax that goes to housing and homeless services And so this year between housing and homeless services. We got 35 percent Homeless services got a greater portion of that than the housing authority this year Based on the city's needs and the council's goals with homelessness being a top goal So I can look up. It may take me a few minutes of that 35 percent How much went to housing and how much went to homeless? It would just take me a few minutes to find that if you would like to wait or I can tell you next month Would that's fine. So of the transfer tax 35 percent Was transferred in Yes to homeless and housing and you're only seeing the housing housing side So that 286 is is a portion of 35 percent Okay Yeah, it's just something I was interested in if you want to present here or we can you can send it to me separate that would be Interesting Just with taking me five minutes to look up a little less That's I'm sure it's buried someplace. That's fine. Good. Thank you I'd also be interested in that. Yeah, okay. Yeah, if you could that would be helpful And probably for our next meeting Well, also if I can interject at our next meeting in february I believe we have a budget study session So Kate Goldfein will be diving much deeper into the budget and that'll be a great opportunity to highlight the resources that we anticipate Coming to the housing authority in fiscal year 21 22 Perfect. We'll we'll we'll deal with it at that point. Thank you commissioners have any other questions I want to see if um This is where we can open it up for public comments on item 12.2 Actually both items 12.1 and 12.2 cheer if I may Oh, you're yes. So if we can any public comment on 12.1 or 12.2. Thank you A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers The first speaker will be acknowledged and invited to speak Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown or at the conclusion of your comment Chair omen at this time. I see no hands raised and we received no email public comment on 12.1 or 12.2 Thank you very much um The next item on the agenda is item 13, which was consent items and there are no consent items and um Now we're moving to item 14, which are the report items and I have to recuse myself on 14 1.1 And 14 and 14.2 and I turned it over the very capable hands of vice chair test And thank you everyone and Megan. Congratulations on your first Meeting running everything Well done. Thank you chair omen So we're moving on to item 14.1 Megan Item 14.1 is a report item Community development block grant disaster recovery notice of funding availability funding recommendations Nicole Rathbun program specialist presenting Good afternoon housing authority commissioners. I'm Nicole Rathbun program specialist for the housing trust This item for you today is the community development block grant disaster recovery notice of funding availability recommendation You'll hear me refer to this acronym often throughout this presentation as cdbg dr So today we'll go over a brief cdbg dr overview The null facilitation process The applications received The recommended projects And if the housing authority is Agreeable, I'd like to pause after each recommended project to allow any housing authority Questions on each project as we go before we move on to the next project Okay, the next slide please Great. So for a brief overview of the cdbg dr program Through this over 3,000 residential units were lost in 2017 when the tubs fire went through santa rosa In response to this the u.s. Department of housing and urban development or HUD allocated cdbg dr funds to the state Which is the california department of housing and community development or hcd And that was for recovery from all of the 2017 disasters, not just the santa rosa disasters So from these funds hcd created a new program for multifamily housing called the disaster recovery multifamily housing program Or dr mhp for short So through the state's action plan Adopted by HUD santa rosa was identified for up to approximately 38.5 million dollars for affordable housing in santa rosa Next slide please So a little bit about the null facilitation process and kind of how we've gotten to where we are today The city council met on october 13th and approved a standard agreement or a grant agreement with hcd And delegated program administration to the housing authority to oversee the program and that's why we're in front of you today Over the next couple of weeks after october 13th staff drafted the solicitation materials and obtained hcd's approval And published the notice of funding availability or NOFA on november 3rd Applications were due from this NOFA on december 3rd And the NOFA also included is included here today as attachment 1 to the staff report for you to review if you'd like The joint ad hoc meeting or the joint ad hoc committee met on January 11th and the 14th to review the applications received And today we are asking the housing authority to make a funding recommendation and direct staff to submit the recommended projects to hcd for approval Again with this project or with this program being administered from hcd to the housing authority There is an additional layer of approvals for the projects that are deemed to go forward After the project applications are submitted to hcd hcd then has 60 days To make a funding decision. We anticipate that timeline to be shorter. However, 60 days is the benchmark that we have moving forward Next slide please So the NOFA summary um Here we'll just go over the high points of the NOFA that was drafted. Um Most of the criteria was set by hcd So staff had limited Other influences on this process the NOFA was issued on november 3rd into december 3rd in 2020 We had 38,353,107 dollars of cdbg dr funds available through this NOFA into the community The selection criteria was derived directly from hcds DRMhp development application review and underwriting checklist. Those are public facing documents on the hcd website In those lists, there's about 45 criteria for scoring the applications Most of which are pass fail or yes or no answers And the factors that provide for varying degrees of readiness in which applications could be assessed and compared to each other Are the following three criteria. So that's what we are focusing on in the presentation today and in the reviews So those criteria are the status of entitlements The status of the NEPA environmental review And the degree to which other funding sources are Committed and there is a difference between funding sources identified funding sources That have offer letters and funding sources that are actually committed and that's a key distinction as we go forward through this presentation Other factors that are considered are the total development cost per unit And the estimated construction start date and project completion We're really focusing on project readiness and wanting to get these units in the community as quickly as possible Next slide please All right. So and here's just a high level summary of the applications that we received There were 17 total applications received requesting over 149 million dollars for 1,283 affordable units 13 out of the 17 applications were complete and aligned with the policies and procedures for the program There were two applications that were verbally withdrawn during the process So that left us with 11 project applications Seeking over 80 million dollars and as a reminder, we had just over 38 million dollars in program funds For this note for solicitation process. So we're still severely over prescribed Next slide please So here are the 11 project applications that Were complete and not withdrawn during this process The project applications were assessed based on the degree to which each application aligned with the selection criteria that I just spoke about I'm not going to go through each one of these projects One by one. You guys can read through them on on the slide that we have Um, the projects that are not recommended to move forward at this time In general had a lower percentage of their total development cost from committed funding sources So again the difference between a commitment letter that's a firm commitment letter like a letter from a bank Versus an intent letter or an offer letter Or an intent or an offer letter with Underwriting contingencies based on funding sources that aren't yet secured. So there's varying degrees of commitment for a lot of these sources and Another factor that some of the not recommended projects may have had is either No NEPA environmental review started Or they're not fully entitled. So they're still waiting for their permits And there are more actions to do with the planning department before they have successfully entitled the project Next slide please So here are the recommended projects. Uh, these were recommended by the joint city council and housing authority ad hoc committee Uh, these were uh, unanimous in their decision And these are the projects that rose to the top based on those selection criteria that I just spoke about We've got the menesino avenue project at 35 75 menesino the caritas homes project The cannery at railroad square Burbank avenue apartments and the linda tunas senior apartments Uh, next slide please So at this point I'll be going into a brief overview of each of the recommended projects Uh, I'd like to pause after each one And allow any clarifying questions. We do have Developers on on the line if there's any additional clarifying questions that we need to ask for these five recommended projects So to start we have 35 75 menesino avenue phase one The developer is brj e phase one housing partners lp This is an lp that was created for this project The main players are burbank housing and related california The loan amount requested and recommended is 11,917,110 dollars This is for new construction and uh, this is at the former site of the journey's end mobile home park, which was Um impacted by the 2017 disasters directly This phase would be for 94 units of affordable housing targeted to seniors Next slide please Can we go to the next slide please? Great. Thank you And the affordability mix on this project Um Is in front of you so you can review 13 of the units for extremely low income 56 units at the 50 percent AMI level and 24 at the 60 percent of area median income Levels with the one unrestricted managers unit The majority of the units are one bedroom units with four being two bedroom units Next slide please So here we have the benefits of the project and factors that we're taking into consideration when the application was reviewed by the ad hoc committee This project provides the needed affordable housing in one and two bedroom units And the unit mix is targeted at extremely low very low and the low income seniors The project is already improved by city council on december 8th 2020. So it's fully entitled The NEPA environmental review is underway And all other funding sources are secured. So they've already received their fca tax credits over the summer They have permanent loans that are already committed and the dr funds if awarded today Would fill the remaining funding gap needed in this project to get started Construction would start by september 2021 for the project if awarded today Next slide please So here we just have an aerial of the project site at 3575 mendicino avenue And I would like to pause here for any questions so far about this project before we move on to the next I have a question My question is given this funding availability Is this only to replace units that were lost Or will this help put a dent into the units that Are currently not at the level of low income housing needed in santa rosa So the intent of the dr mhp program Is to create an infusion of affordable units in santa rosa because of the number of housing units that were at Low income levels that were lost during the 2017 fires So this is not a one-for-one replacement of those units This is a funding opportunity From the state To help address those dire housing needs that we have in our community that were exacerbated by the 2017 fires nicole, we have larry florin with bourbon housing That I believe has Further follow-up larry I have enabled your speaking permissions Thanks, and nicole. Thank you for the presentation Commissioner answer I think to answer your question. The ultimate project will have 162 Units of affordable housing on the site. This is the first phase which is 94 units 162 Does replace 162 mobile homes that were destroyed or left them Not able to be occupied. There is a market rate project which we're not connected to On so that's that's two and a half acres of the 13 acres the other 11 acres will have market rate housing The site owners in the process of identifying a market rate developer That will be an additional Say 400 units or will under 400 units So the total would be 530 units on the site between both the market rate and the affordable once it's developed Were there any other questions from the housing authority board before we move on to the next project? I'd just like to make a comment on I believe What's before us today is a property the portion of the property Just north of keiser. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct I'm assuming that this does not cover journeys in So this is the site of the former journeys and mobile home park. Oh, it is okay Thank you Okay, so I'm going to move on to the next project which is the keratoss homes phase one So the developer on this one is keratoss homes phase one. It is a collaboration or I'm sorry It is from bourbon housing development corporation The loan amount requested and recommended today is 8,945,657 This is also a new construction project With 64 total units in this phase And 30 of those would be targeted to chronically homeless persons with disabilities So this is part of the keratoss village development That is would eventually take over the site where the current homeless service center Is on morgan street, but this is phase one of that Project that is just the affordable housing component at the north end of the site Next slide please So here we see the affordability mix with those 30 units at the 30 percent of am i level 21 units at 50 percent and 12 at the 60 percent area median income The unit mix would be 29 studios 27 one bedrooms and eight two bedroom units Next slide please All right, and so here we are going over the benefits again This project would provided the needed affordable housing in the studio one and two bedroom units The project was approved by city council on february 8th of 2020. So it's fully entitled The nipa environmental review has been started And again all other funding sources for this project have already been secured. So they've got loans from the permanent lenders other County and state financial investments in the project and dr funds would fill the remaining funding gap here Uh construction if awarded would be anticipated to start in august of 2021 which is only about uh six months away at this point And on this project there's also a previous housing authority commitment of 30 project based vouchers Next slide please So here you see the aerial of the intended sites again, this is the it would be the north Section of that yellow box that you see in front of you along morgan street That would be the phase one for affordable housing There would be subsequent phases that would include the new homeless services center In another housing phase, but right now we're just focusing on the phase one, which is the affordable housing units At the north side of this image So at this time i'd like to pause to see if there are any questions from the housing authority board Before we move on to the next project Nicole i'd like to add that in addition to the project based vouchers commitment The housing authority did approve funds for the acquisition of the site. I think it included this portion as well Thanks, steve All right, I don't hear any other questions or comments So i'm going to move forward to the next slide and we will start discussing the cannery at railroad square So this is the john stewart company as the developer The loan amount recommended today is 10,300,000 dollars. It is also a new construction project This one has 129 units 33 of which would be targeted to formerly homeless families Uh, it's also important to note on this project that after applications were initially reviewed by the ad hoc committee There i'm sorry after applications were initially submitted There was some change to the four percent tax credit regulations from tkac Which set a four percent floor for tax credit equity valuation so And then based on the ad hoc's committee's direction staff actually went back to this developer to A request that they reduced their funding request So that we could fund potentially recommend the project and in light of the four percent floor for the tax credit equity The original request on this project was 13.2 million dollars And they were able to adjust and revise the amount of the dr requested Down by 23 to a 10.3 million dollar request Next slide, please And here we have the affordability mix The split is pretty even between the 30 and 50 percent units at 33 and 37 respectively Then 58 units at 80 of area median income This project has only seven studio units 48 one bedroom and 73 two bedroom units So we see a larger proportion of the units on the larger side in this project Next slide, please And to go over the benefits, uh, this project also provides the needed portable housing and studio one and two bedroom units Targeted two extremely low very low and the low income households The project was granted ministerial approval through sp35 in august of 2020. So it's fully entitled as well There is the nipa environmental review that is already underway And this project is planning on applying for the four percent tax credits that our Applications are due on february 4th 2021 Aside from a pending application for tax credits all other funding sources are secured The loans from the permanent lenders prior commitment from the housing authority and the amount of 450 thousand dollars Um and other Re-contributed equity from the developer are committed to the project So construction if awarded would be anticipated to start by october 2021 on this project Next slide, please And again, here's the aerial showing the project site on west third And I would like to pause here for any questions from the housing authority board. Okay hearing No questions. Let's move on to the next slide for bourbonke avenue apartments Okay, so the developer here for bourbonke avenue apartments is Wsa bourbonke housing partners, which is a collaboration between waterstone residential and bourbonke housing The loan amount requested and recommended today is five million dollars. This is also a new construction project with 64 units Next slide, please The affordability mix here is 24 units at 30 ami 27 at 50 and 12 at 60 of area median income So we've got a deep level of affordability on this project with all units under 60 of ami The unit mix is 21 bedroom units 25 two bedroom units and 18 three bedroom units So this project qualifies for the large family designation with hcd And this is the only project that we have today in front of you with the three bedroom units Next slide, please So benefits on this project Providing needed affordability for in one two and three bedroom units targeted to extremely low very low and low income households This project was approved by city council in june of 2020. So it's fully entitled Uh partial funding sources are secured So the loan from their permanent lender Then their deferred development fee are committed They are planning on applying for the state's mhp program and tax credits in september 2021 The dr funds would fill the remaining gap Construction if awarded would be anticipated to start by april 2022 Additional information since the publication of these slides The developer has engaged in epa. So while it's not Under way yet They have engaged their consultant and have a scope of work and are ready to begin that if awarded And this one has a housing authority prior commitment of 12 project-based vouchers Next slide, please All right, and here we have the aerial location showing the project potential site at 1780 bourbank avenue in senorosa I'd like to pause here for any questions from the housing authority board question Is there any language in the nilpa application to incentivize local builders and contractors as opposed to relying upon people coming from afar to keep funds in our own community So there is not that language in the nilpa. These are federal funds Which don't allow for a local preference on the developers Or the financing or the so the financing source would not allow a local preference Hearing no other questions. I will go ahead and move on to the next one And this is our last project. We're recommending today. It's the linda tuna senior apartments Great, so this developer is coffield lane senior housing It is a subsidiary of pedaluma ecumenical properties or pep housing The lona mount today right being recommended is $2,190,340 This is for new construction and rehabilitation of the former site of the scottish right event center on highway 12 Well highway 12 and acacia, excuse me Uh, this project is 26 units targeted to seniors with five of those units targeted to formerly homeless seniors Next slide, please And here we have the affordability mix Again, there's a deep level of affordability here with five units at 30 of am i and 20 units at 50 of am i with one unrestricted managers unit All of the units on site here are studio apartment size units Next slide, please So the benefits of this project providing the needed affordability housing for seniors Targeted in extreme low and very low income households. These are all studio apartments The nipa environmental review is complete And partial funding sources are secured They have grant funding a deferred developer fee ahp And a loan from their own sources to make the project pencil Um, they are Anticipating construction to start by august 2021 if awarded This is another project that initially had a larger request and reduced their Request based on the funding constraints that we had available And we have a prior housing authority commitment in this project of 690 thousand dollar loan and eight project based vouchers That have already been awarded to this project Next slide, please All right, and here we have the aerial showing the location of this site at the corner of highway 12 and akisha lane I'd like to pause here for any questions from the housing authority board before we move forward I have a comment on The journey's end property We know ended up in a destruction of many of the homes there And two people lost their lives there. One of them was a woman named linda tunas So it's both ironic But meaning meaningful and honor honorable that these apartments are named after her Thank you. Yes Did we have any other questions that looked like, uh, yeah commissioner downing your hand was up? I well, is there any matrix in place to keep tabs of What are housing needs would be Once these building projects were completed Or is that just a unattainable? number of this point So in the city's general plan, there's the regional housing needs assessment or the arena that looks at the Unmet needs for affordable housing in different categories in siena roza I believe that was megan jump in here. Um, that was just updated. I believe For the new general plan The city's required to report to the california department of housing and community development on annual basis Their progress meeting the re the regional housing needs allocation. So we do have a fairly accurate Assessment of where we're at based on the allocation And then also as part of the preparation of the consolidated plan That we are required to prepare and submit to the u.s. Department of housing and urban development We identify the unmet needs and the cost burden of Various populations and one other Factor that we take into account is with each of these applications We require them to submit a market study Which identifies the the potential need for the unit type and how that will be absorbed into the market area So we're also testing what the need is and um, how quickly That those units will be absorbed into the market Thank you Okay, so we'll move on to the next slide, please So this is a repeat slide. Uh, now that we've gone through all five projects that are being recommended By staff in the ad hoc committee We have 35 75 mendicino avenue the caritas homes phase one cannery at railroad square The bourbon cabinet apartments and the linden tuna senior apartments Uh, just as a reminder, there was a joint city council and housing authority ad hoc review committee that recommended these projects unanimously Next slide please So without further ado Our recommendation today it is recommended by the joint city council and housing authority ad hoc review committee And the housing and community services department that the housing authority by resolutions approve a conditional commitment of funds to one Brje phase one housing partners lp in the amount of 11 million 917 $110 for construction related costs for 35 75 mendicino avenue phase one And two caritas homes phase one lp in the amount of 8 945 657 for construction related costs for caritas homes phase one And three the cannery at railroad square lp in the amount of 10 300 000 for construction related costs for the cannery at railroad square Four wsa bourbon housing partners one lp in the amount of five million dollars for construction related costs for bourbon cabinet apartments And five coffield lane senior housing ink in the amount of two million of 190 340 dollars for construction and rehabilitation related costs for the linden tuna senior apartments And authorized staff to submit the respective project applications to the california department of housing and community development for mcgill So with that i open it up for other questions from the housing authority. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have I would just like to make a comment and that is state birk and myself are on the ad hoc um committee that reviewed these projects along with council members tom sch Weltham and john soyer and them for their input. And it was very, it was long meetings, two meetings altogether. And a lot to cover. And Nicole, thank you so much. Thank you. I would just agree with chair, test vice chair chess, test comments. And just to add that there was a lot of work that was done between the first meeting and the second meeting that was accomplished in a record time as well as the entire process. I mean, you know, this much money process so quickly and so expertly working with very tight deadlines, working with the state of California was just unbelievable. So I just want to extend my thanks to the great work of staff and bringing us to this point. One more question that I have, Nicole, is if this, as we move towards a vote after public comment, what is the process to these? Does your work then submit these projects? Is it HCD or HUD? Sure. So after today's housing authority action, whatever projects are recommended to move forward, staff would then submit new applications to HCD, so to the state. It does require a bit of staff time to submit new applications. It's not just submitting the applications that the developers used to respond to the NOFA. So we will be submitting new applications on the developer's behalf to HCD over the next week is the intent. Thank you. Any other questions by commissioners? Seeing none. Now we will take public comments for this slide for 14.1. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. The first speaker will be acknowledged and invited to speak. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so. Your microphone will be ended of that countdown or at the conclusion of your comment. And as a reminder, if you are a phone-in listener, you can dial star nine to raise your hand. There will be three minutes for public comment today. Our first public comment will be from Linda Adrain, followed by Efron Carrillo. Linda, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you see the timer? Hold on one second. Okay. Can you see the timer on your screen? I'm sorry. No, I don't. Okay. I will let you know when your three minutes has elapsed. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose, and your time begins now. Okay. I'm Linda Adrain. I'm calling. I'm probably going to get emotional, so just ignore that. In regards to 3575 Medesillo Avenue, we just hear anything. I lived for 25 years, and I really want you to support that because at the moment, I'm still living in a temporary apartment, which is only 320 square feet, and I've been waiting for journeys in to be rebuilt so I can move back in. The perfect location is close to the freeway, is close to the markets, and it's just next to Kaiser, so it's a really good location. That's sort of what I have to say. I really am in support of this as much as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Efron Carrillo, followed by Luke Lindenbush. Efron, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you confirm you see the timer on your screen? Yes, I can confirm it. Thank you. Okay. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose, and your time begins now. Good afternoon, Chair Test, Housing Authority members and City staff. My name is Efron Carrillo, Housing Director for Burbank Housing. Linda, if you're still on the call, you know we love you and certainly appreciate the continued support along the process that you've had for us for this important rebuild. First, I want to thank and acknowledge your staff, Chair Test, and the tremendous amount of work it took to get to this point, as well as the ad hoc committee members, Burke and Test and Council members, Schwedhelm and Sawyer, for your time, your energy, and your due diligence in reviewing all the proposals before you. We are here in strong support of the ad hoc recommendations for consideration this afternoon. This does represent by far the largest one-time investment in recent memory in addressing the city's most pressing issue and that's housing affordability. At a time when both the wildfires and COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated the crises and impacted those most vulnerable and facing increased housing challenges, this influx of funds into affordable housing development doesn't only meet one of the city Council's top goals, but it truly puts into action housing recovery, actual construction of homes, it alleviates homelessness, and charts a path forward towards overall recovery. You've already heard from our CEO, Larry Florin. We are accompanied by Anne Silverberg, CEO of Related California, our partner on 3575 Mendocino Avenue, as well as project manager, Karen Massey, and Nick Wilder and Andrew Shorfar of Related. Mark Krug, project manager on Caritas Village is also on the call. Should there be any follow-up questions from the Housing Authority and or staff? And finally, Peter Scalinger, our partner on Burbank Avenue Apartments, is also here present. Should there be any specific questions that we can address? In closing, thank you for your time, for your continued focus on housing and housing construction and acknowledging to Housing Authority member Downey's comments. This is in fact a major step forward in chipping away at the housing units that are needed and demanded, specifically affordable units for the City of Santa Rosa. Thank you, Chair Test. Thank you. Are there any other public comments? Yes, we have quite a few. I'm just unmuting my microphone. Our next public comment will be from Luke Lindenbush, followed by Jan Lindenfall. Luke, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you confirm you see the timer on your screen? Yes, I can. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Test and Santa Rosa Housing Authority. My name is Luke Lindenbush, Project and Policy Coordinator with Generation Housing, a recently established Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Organization. I want to first acknowledge that this is not an easy process, so I want to say thank you to everyone on the ad hoc committee who made difficult decisions on how to disperse the funds available, less than half of all those requested. I want to say thank you to Interim Director Basinger and our staff for all of their hard work to meet tight-state deadlines. I also want to thank the Council for doing a great job expediting this and note that this timeline will allow these vital projects to leverage state funding and come to fruition. As stated in Generation Housing's letters of support, three projects that we have endorsed have been recommended for funding, and those are Caritas Village, 3575 Medicino, and the Canary. Generation Housing supports a process and criteria that prioritizes competitive projects with committed funding sources and construction readiness. All three of the projects that we've endorsed meet that criteria, so I want to just take a little bit to say why we endorsed the three projects that are before you today. So 3575 Medicino does justice to the former journey's end site with a strong proposal for senior housing and close proximity to medical services and amenities. Caritas Village is an innovative model that upon completion of all phases will comprehensively address low-income housing needs and modernize a high-volume navigation center downtown, and the Canary by John Stewart Company will reserve 25% for formerly homeless families and is cited in a smart, adjacent priority development area, and with the new Clipper pilot program for lower-income families, these households can access good transit. So this really just is the tip of the iceberg in terms of how exemplary these projects are, and again I just want to underscore the difficulty of this process and thank staff, the Housing Authority, Council, and everyone involved in making sure that this is as thorough as possible and that we can get some of these phenomenal projects breaking ground here in Sonoma County, so thank you very much. Our next public comment will be from Jan Lindenthal followed by phone-in resident ending in 0191. Jan, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you confirm you see the timer on your screen? Yes, I can. Perfect. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose, and your time begins now. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. My name is Jan Lindenthal. I'm the Chief Real Estate Development Officer at Mid-Pen Housing, and I'm speaking to you today with regard to Mid-Pen's Mahonia Glen project and to appeal the funding recommendations for CDBGDR and project-based vouchers. As a reminder, Mahonia Glen is a 99-unit new construction project serving large families located on Highway 12 and Calistoga Road in Santa Rosa. We submitted a letter regarding this appeal today through the secretary and the executive director, so I assume all of the commission members have received it. We have shared these concerns with staff and very much appreciate their professionalism in listening to our concerns. We recognize that staff and the ad hoc committee had a number of worthy applications to consider. However, we believe that the selection criteria was not consistently applied to all applications, nor did the evaluation process take into account not only the percentage of committed funds, but also the overall competitiveness of the proposed financing strategy. In the case of Mahonia Glen, our application was ranked lower than some others because our permanent financing commitments were based on a prospective award of project-based vouchers, which was the subject of our voucher application. This is true for all other projects receiving awards of vouchers in this round. Mid-Pen's commitment letter represented our loan in two tranches, one funded by the tenant-paid rents and the other by the rents paid through the project-based vouchers. This is a standard and typical way of representing our permanent financing commitments. Although not all of the projects may have represented their permanent loans in these two tranches, the permanent loans reflected in their commitment letters were also predicated upon a prospective award of vouchers. Secondly, the evaluation process did not take into account the relative competitiveness of the financing strategy proposed. Two of the projects proposed for funding are relying on a future award of tax-exempt bonds and 4% credit, as is Mahonia Glen. In contrast, Mahonia's Glen financing plan relies only on the award of funding we were seeking, CBBGDR, and project-based vouchers. With that in hand, we were preparing to submit an application for 4% tax credits and bonds on February 4th. Mahonia Glen also has the added advantage that none of the other recommended projects do. The project is located in an area the state designates as high resource. Areas that are designated by the state in this way are done so because they have access to quality jobs, education, and ensure de-concentration of property. As a result, Mahonia Glen will receive maximum points in the SIDLAC scoring process, ranking it higher than any other project that's being recommended for funding in this competition. For these reasons, we strongly urge the commission to reevaluate the funding recommendations and make an award of fund to Mahonia Glen. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Colin resident phone number ending in 0191. I have followed by Peter Schellinger. Phone in resident, I have enabled your speaking permissions. You will need to unmute yourself there. Oh, I think I'm here now. Thank you. Perfect. Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. This is Don Lusty and the director of development, the John Stewart company and speaking on agenda item 14.1 with regard to our family affordable project, the cannery at railroad square. We are grateful for the city's commitment to this project and for the leadership of both the housing authority and the city council in publishing this NOFA has been a herculean task and I also want to thank the city staff who work extremely hard to keep this NOFA schedule on track. Without the recommended funds, the cannery at railroad square project would not go forward. With these funds, we are well positioned to be successful in our bond tax credit application to the state we're submitting next week on the floor. Longest to leverage city funds with significant state resources. Again, we are grateful for the city's commitment to the cannery project and happy to answer any questions. Our next speaker will be from Peter Schellinger, followed by Mary Stomp. Peter, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you confirm you see the timer on your screen? I do. Thank you. Perfect. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Hi, I'm Peter Schellinger with Waterstone residential. We are a general partner in the partnership forum to develop the Burbank Avenue apartments. Our partner is Burbank housing. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the ad hoc review committee as well as staff for their extraordinary work in this effort and their recommendation today. I also wanted to mention that most everyone knows that the housing authority had previously committed project-based doctors for our project last year and with a commitment today, we would be highly competitive for the MHP funding at the state level, which is a precursor for the 4% tax credit. So we really are grateful for your consideration and your continued support of our project. I also wanted to remind everyone that Burbank Avenue apartments is the multifamily program of a larger plan development that has been in the planning process since 1998, is gone through an annexation specific plan and then project specific entitlements with exhausted environmental review and a secret document that would basically be the basis for our MEPA analysis, which as staff had mentioned, we've already initiated with the scope of work that's been approved by staff. So I'm available. Should you have any additional comments on the land use or environmental? My partner Chris Westlake could answer any questions as it relates to the financing, but I just wanted to mention how grateful we are of your continued support. So thank you very much. Our next speaker will be Mary Stomp followed by Christopher J. Lopez. Mary, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you confirm you see the timer on your screen? Yes, I can. Perfect. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Mary Stomp, Executive Director of PEP Housing. I wanted to thank you for supporting the Linda Tunis Senior Housing Project. This is a project that's really been very personal to many of us at PEP, because as was mentioned earlier, we're honoring somebody that died in the fires while our resident manager was busy evacuating residents at our property at Kesha Lane Senior Apartments. She didn't know that there was a fire burning miles away at Journey's End Mobile Home Park. So we really, this is really to honor Linda Tunis and her life. We've had a lot of local support, including local foundations like Kaiser, St. Joseph Health, the Weinberg Foundation, and raised about $3.5 million in support from foundations. The project's too small to receive tax credits, so we had to do something unique in terms of how to fund this project. It's going to serve seniors who are impacted by federally declared disasters like the Tubbs Fire and the Glass Fire. We're really looking forward to starting construction on the project. It's going to be a great asset in the community, and thank you very much for your support of our project. We really appreciate it. Our next speaker will be Christopher J. Lopez. I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you confirm you see the timer on your screen? Yes, I see it. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for hosting this. My name is Christopher J. Lopez. I'm a disaster relief attorney with Legal Aid of Sonoma County, and I am commenting today to State Legal Aid's official support for the recommended funding going to the three, five, seven, five Mendocino Avenue projects. Legal Aid of Sonoma County, we are a private nonprofit that for 50 years has been working to advance basic human rights throughout the county and providing free legal services for our low-income and most vulnerable residents here in Sonoma County. In 2017, we started our disaster relief program in response to the fires that destroy, you know, 2,800 homes throughout the county, including over 160 homes at Journey's End. And since then, the site remains vacant as we've heard from other people earlier. The residents are still displaced and still in need of housing, adequate housing, and Legal Aid has had to help several of the homeowners from Journey's End recover only a fraction of what they should have been entitled to, to be able to, you know, either replace their home to get re-homed again. What we see with this project is that we're going to be creating, you know, a greater amount of low and very low and market rate housing in a position, in a location geographically that is close to the highways, that is close to medical services, that will really actually benefit the people who need the low-income housing the most. So Legal Aid is in support of this project and recommends that the funding that has been recommended to by the committee be granted. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Kevin Riley, followed by phone-in resident 7372. Kevin, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you confirm you see the timer on your screen? I can see the timer. Thank you very much. So please identify yourself for public record if you so choose, and your time begins now. Thank you. My name is Kevin Riley, and I am a Regional Representative at Greenbelt Alliance. I would first like to share my sympathies with the lives who are impacted at the former Journey's End neighborhood. Well, Greenbelt Alliance, as you may have heard, is an environmental nonprofit that encourages both the protection of open space as well as directing development and growth into our existing communities. We endorse project developments in the Bay Area that help further these goals by providing our own independent validation of smart infill housing, master plans, and mixed-use projects. We emphasize to City Commission such as yours that we projects that we feel help provide affordable housing and decrease the effects of climate change by reducing vehicle miles, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions. After careful review, I'm happy to say that Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to endorse the proposed 3575 Mendocino Avenue project, and we urge you to approve their funding request. Given the overlapping climate, housing, and now COVID-19 pandemic crisis, it is more important than ever before to make sure that everyone in the Bay Area has a safe place to call home and a short commute to work. This project, located in a fire recovery zone, has an impressive commitment to deep affordability with its 162 senior affordable units and represents 30% affordability for the project. This is the kind of climate smart development that we need in the Bay Area now. We need to meet our housing and fire recovery goals. We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and make sure that local residents are able to grow and thrive in their own communities. This project is a great project and it addresses all of these concerns. We hope this funding approval and successful inspire cities and communities in the Bay Area to redouble their efforts to grow smartly. Thank you very much to the development team, to the housing authority, and the staff for all of your support. Thank you so much. Our next public comment will be from resident 7372. I have enabled your speaking permissions. Hi. Your three minutes will begin shortly. I will let you know when your time has expired. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Thank you. My name is Ali Gaylord. I'm the director of housing development from Midpenhouse and North Bay office. Thank you commissioners and staff for your review of these projects and for working through each of these really long applications so diligently. I just wanted to underscore that the evaluation process did not take into the account the relative competitiveness of the financing strategies proposed. Two of the projects proposed for funding are relying on a future award of competitive tax-agent bonds and 4% tax credits, as is Mahonia Glenn, which is a Midpen project. As noted by this applicant, the Burbank apartment, that project is also reliant on a future award of MHP through the state NOPA process and that state NOPA has then actually delayed. It's not even announced when it's going to come out this year and it is very, very competitive to get an award through that program. In the best case scenario, even if Burbank Avenue was awarded MHP this year, they would not start construction until the end of 2022. And I know readiness and getting the units out to the community is a huge goal of this funding. And in contrast, Mahonia Glenn would start construction in October of 2021. Mahonia's financing plan relies only on the award of the funding that we're seeking, which is the CDBG, DR and project-based vouchers. And with that award, we would submit an application for the 4% tax credits and bonds on February 4th. As was already mentioned about Mahonia is located in a high resource area. So it's the only project that is applying for bonds that the city is recommending that would score the maximum point. So it's the only way that the city can get the bonds. Additionally, the Mahonia Glenn is a large family targeted development. So we provide three bedroom homes, the families in the Lincoln Valley School District. As staff mentioned in the presentation, the overall financing changes to the 4% tax credit rate that happened in December should leave projects that are applying for 4% credits over sourced. So there should be CDBG, DR, money to spread even further around different projects. During the process, other projects were asked if they could reduce funding asked to make their projects work. Yet, Mahonia Glenn didn't receive the opportunity to resize our CDBG DR request to see if we could use less funding. For this reason, we strongly urge the commission to reevaluate the funding recommendation and make an award of funds to Mahonia Glenn sufficient to permit us to move forward with our application for bonds and tax credits on February 4th and start construction in October of this year. We've analyzed a variety of different scenarios and can make it work with $7 million and nine vouchers or five and a half million dollars and 15 vouchers. Thank you. Our next speaker will be resident 4736. I have enabled your speaking permissions resident with phone number ending in 4736. Can you hear me now? I can hear you. Thank you. I will let you know when your time has expired. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Thank you very much. I'm Michelle Gervais. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Canary at River Square. I'm sorry you can't hear directly from John Stewart, the captain of this 21-year Odyssey, a gem of an individual and a giant in the affordable housing industry and elsewhere who passed about a week after this project was re-entitled late last summer. But on behalf of John and our entire team and echoing Don Lusty's comments previously, we are deeply grateful for the ongoing effort of the countless city, staff, board and commission and council members along the past two decades and especially the Housing Authority staff and the ad hoc committee over the past rolling months to pull all these major dollars together to leverage more funds than the city has ever seen. The original vision of the Canary project, which John and his partners purchased last century, Steve Burke I know you will remember these days, it still stands as a priority goal for the community and city leaders which is revitalizing the heart of Santa Rosa and honoring history as we go. The Canary at River Square which retains and restores the historic walls and loading dock and the awning and the water tower. It contributes building area to make room for the public 4th Street corridor to extend all the way to the Intra County Creek Pass. It helps increase riderships and it fulfills a litany of city goals and most importantly it provides desperately needed homes for a diverse mix of individuals and families that can take advantage of the Tropstein Center and other downtown services. So it is just so gratifying to see these stars aligned for the Canary project and for many other Santa Rosa projects and their future residents. So it's with special thanks to Megan and Nicole and the ad hoc committee for your stunningly swift and heroic effort to equip the housing community to provide so many units to Santa Rosa in a time of such need. Many thanks. Vice Chair Tess that concludes our live public comment and we received no email public comment on this item. Thank you. So we proceed now for any motions to consider. Vice Chairman Tess, I would propose the motion to approve resolution of the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Rosa approving a conditional commitment of disaster recovery multi-family housing program loan funds in the amount of 11,917,110 dollars to BRJE phase one housing partners for construction related cost for 3575 Mendocino Avenue phase one 3575 Mendocino Santa Rosa, California a portion of AP 173-030-001 and loan number 5021-3265-21. So may I through the chair if I can just provide a little bit of background to to give some clarity to all the commissioners. So the way that this item has been set up is that if the commissioners do want to approve the recommendations or whatever it is that you want to approve, you will need separate resolutions for each of the items. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Commissioner Burke was proposing that what was making the motion on the on the first of the items that were recommended and I just wanted to make sure the commissioners understood how that was going to work. Yes, thank you Jeff for pointing that out and also motion in a second then there could be discussion before there's final final vote given the rules the Rosenberg rules I believe. Thank you. Is there a second? About the second then. Okay any other discussion? I guess uh uh vice chair uh to us I would just ask um I do have some questions uh not in this particular motion uh but I am interested maybe before we get to the fourth recommendation that we have a response by staff on the comments related to the mid mid pen Mahonia project uh where there was a letter um I've not seen that letter I was looking for as we were talking I haven't seen the letter and but I do I am interested in hearing from the staff before we act on that particular motion just so you kind of have my thoughts. I have not seen that letter either. Okay at this point I'd like to go ahead and do a roll call roll call vote on the first resolution for the BRJE phase one so um Commissioner Burke. Aye. Commissioner Downey. Commissioner Olson. You're muted. Commissioner Olson could you unmute please. Am I that's better? Yes sir. Aye. And vice chair test. Aye. And the motion passes with a count of four eyes and no names. So we would move on to um the next um motion. Yes uh vice chair test. I have a motion to approve resolution of the following excuse me of the housing authority of the city of Santa Rosa approving conditional commitment of disaster recovery multifamily housing program loan funds in the amount of eight million nine hundred and forty five thousand six hundred and fifty seven dollars to Caritas homes phase one LP for the construction related costs for Caritas homes phase one located at Morgan and 7th street Santa Rosa California APN 010-041-001 and 010-041-015 and 01-041-016 and loan number five zero two zero dash three two seven five dash two one. Thank you Commissioner Burke. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you Commissioner Olson. Okay at this point we'll do a roll call vote for this resolution. Start with Commissioner Burke. Commissioner Burke your vote. Commissioner Downey. Commissioner Olson. And Vice Chair Test. Aye. And of course Chair Oh has will not be voting on this. He is he's recused from this vote so it passes with four yeas and no nays. Do we have a motion for the next resolution? Yes Vice Chair Test. Motion to approve resolution of the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Rosa approving a conditional commitment of disaster recovery multifamily housing program loan funds in the amount of five million dollars to WSA Burbank Housing Partners excuse me this is the one that I would prefer to have some more information before we proceed from staff so let me let me let me take a pause if I may and suggest that we have a response from staff. Nicole. Yes thank you I was just unmuting myself so in response to the public comment from midpen the Mahonia Glenn project was not as competitive as compared to the other project applications that we received there that project did not have a NEPA that had begun and the committed funds were only 8% of the total development cost these are the main factors that caused the Mahonia Glenn project to not raise to the top of the projects that you're seeing before you today there is a difference between a firm loan commitment as I spoke to in the presentation of a commitment of a permanent loan versus an offer letter that is contingent upon not yet awarded project based vouchers so the difference is that funding source is considered pending and not secured which results in the lower percentage of total development cost from funding sources it's ultimately the goal of both the ad hoc committee and staff to put forward projects to HCD that HCD is most likely to approve and having the largest amount of committed funding sources is one of those criteria thank you I'm a question if I may and that's it I thank you Megan for making available the letter in the and the request to appeal I apologize I thought that had been distributed this morning by the clerk so my apologies okay so have you had so you've had a chance to review that let I don't know how long it's been in your hands but stated 22nd of January but you've had a chance to review that and as part of your response Megan and Nicole to why I mean just kind of as a follow-up your you've had a chance to review it and that has been factored into your response just now is that correct that is correct and just for the record we received this letter this morning via email that less vice-chair test you wish to do something to the car well I guess I can make the motion and we can see if there's a second they have discussion if they're if that's something the housing authority wishes to do okay so I'm gonna proceed thank you a motion to approve resolution of the housing authority the city of Santa Rosa proving a conditional commitment of the disaster recovery multi-family housing excuse me multi-family housing program loan funds in the amount of five million dollars to WSA Burbank Housing Partners 1 LP for construction related costs for Burbank Avenue Apartments 1780 Burbank Avenue Santa Rosa California a portion of APN 126-361-003 and loan number 5031-3295-21 thank you commissioner Burke do we have a second I'll second it thank you commissioner Olson okay we'll go ahead and do a roll cal roll count vote on this resolution I do believe that we skipped by one of the resolutions that we need to go back to so for the WSA Burbank Housing Partners resolution and amount of five million let me go ahead and do a little count vote for that and we'll start with Commissioner Burke hi and then commissioner Downey and then commissioner Olson hi and then vice chair test hi okay this motion passes with count of four eyes and zero nays with chair chair Owen abstaining from the vote thank you um prisoners if I may as um clerk brown mentioned it appears we skipped over the third resolution which is the cannery of railroad square that's correct we have a motion on that particular project which is I just skipped over I'm sorry uh I'd like to make a motion if I may yes a motion to approve resolution of the housing authority of the city of Santa Rosa approving a conditional commitment of disaster recovery multifamily housing program loan funds in the amount of 10 million 300 000 to cannery at railroad square LP for construction related costs for the cannery at railroad square 3 west 3rd street Santa Rosa california apn 010-017-018 and a portion of 010-171-012 loan number 5930-3285-21 thank you commissioner Burke do we have a second I'll second it thank you commissioner Olson okay we will now do a whole count vote in regard to the cannery at railroad square and I will start with commissioner Burke hi then commissioner Downey hi and commissioner Olson hi and vice chair test hi and the motion passes with the count of poor eyes and their maze with uh chair Owen abstaining from the vote thank you the last project um is there a motion on the last project or Linda Tunis apartments if I may vice chair test I propose a motion to approve resolute excuse me yeah motion to approve resolution of the housing authority of the city of Santa Rosa approving a commission conditional commitment of disaster recovery multifamily housing program loan funds in the amount of 2 million 190 304 to Caulfield lane senior housing ink for the construction related costs for Linda Tunis senior apartments 625 acacia lane Santa Rosa california a portion of apn 182-520-088 loan number 5922-3305-21 thank you commissioner Burke we have a second I'll second it thank you again commissioner Olson okay at this point we'll do a roll call vote in regard to the um uh Linda Tunis senior apartments and I will start with commissioner Burke mine and commissioner Downey hi commissioner Olson hi and vice chair test that motion passes with a count of poor eyes and no maze with uh chair Owen abstaining from the vote thank you I believe we're ready to move on to item 14.2 yes item 14.2 report December 2020 requests for proposals for project-based vouchers funding recommendations for 3575 Mendocino avenue phase one verbank avenue apartments the cannery at railroad square del nido apartments and linda tunis senior apartments Rebecca lane housing and community services manager presenting thank you Megan and good afternoon vice chair test and housing authority commissioners this is Rebecca lane speaking I'm the manager of the housing and community services division overseeing the housing choice voucher program which includes state project-based voucher resources the item I will be presenting today is recommendations for project-based voucher awards under their request for proposals that was released in December of 2020. Next slide please the department of housing and community services released a request for proposals for project-based voucher assistance on November 3rd 2020 the RFP was released in conjunction with the CDBG DR NOFA they've just heard about uh from Nicole they these were released concurrently with the intent to improve the financial feasibility of projects applying for CDBG DR as well as other competitive financing the opportunity closed on December 3rd 2020 and initially requests for over 250 units were received for the 80 units that were made available under the RFP. Next slide please the following slides are a summary of the applications that were reviewed by the committee which could consisted of commissioners test and FERC. As noted in the staff report one applicant withdrew a proposal for 17 vouchers during the review process so I'll not read everything on these slides but as you can see this is a summary of the first this slide here is the first five projects. Next slide please and there's an additional six projects that were reviewed and next slide please and finally the the last three projects these are all listed in alphabetical order by project name and you can see that accounting for the project that read withdrew its proposal for 17 the total number of proposals proposed units that were reviewed were 242 project based voucher units with a total of 1,211 affordable units and on the on this chart you can also see that some of the projects had received previous allocations and that changed the percentage of the total project that is proposed to be using project based voucher resources. Next slide please so an ad hoc committee consisting of commissioners FERC and test met on January 11th and January 14th to review the proposals and these reviews resulted in unanimous recommendations for allocations of all of the vouchers that were available under the RFP the proposals were reviewed in in conjunction with the CDBGR NOPA application in cases where projects sought both resources the committee evaluated for factors such as project readiness feasibility and alignment with the intent of the RFP as well as features of the project that will support the quality of life for future residents Next slide please so the following slides will summarize the committee's recommendations for the five projects again in alphabetical order these recommendations I should note are also conditional commitments which are contingent upon the project receiving the funding the project based vouchers were proposed to leverage as well as meeting all of the project based voucher program requirements listed at 24 CFR 0.983 NPIH notice 2017-21 and all related HUD requirements the first project recommended for funding is 3575 Mendocino Avenue the development partnership is between related California and Bourbon housing 3575 Mendocino Avenue is an affordable senior development within a master plan for the 13.3 acre site where Journey's End mobile home park stood before it was destroyed in the October 2017 Tubbs fire this project proposes 30 project based vouchers in 94 units and will provide affordable senior housing to residents displaced by the wildfire and other extremely low very low and low income seniors the project is located in the northeast quadrant of Santa Rosa and in a priority development area the construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2021 the project will provide a large indoor community space media room exercise room and other community spaces and will provide on-site services for residents this project is recommended for an allocation of 30 project based vouchers and as Nicole did in the previous presentation I'll pause here if there's any specific questions about 3575 Mendocino Avenue and I'm sure we still have project representatives on the line as well seeing no hand I will continue on next slide please Kalec thank you so the next project that is recommended for project based vouchers is Bourbon Avenue apartment this is a development partnership between Waterstone Residential and Bourbon housing and Bourbon Avenue apartment is a part of a larger site development plan known as the Bourbon Avenue subdivision the entire subdivision will consist of a total of 138 homes in a mix of housing types including 62 family homes single family homes excuse me 12 duet row town homes and 64 multi-family apartment homes the apartment homes will be 100 affordable to households between 30 and 60 percent of area median income Bourbon Avenue apartments received a previous allocation of 12 project based vouchers in the June 2020 round and is requesting an additional four units for a total of 16 project based vouchers in the project the request for additional vouchers is due to an approximately 13 increase in construction cost estimates between April and November of 2020 due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic the project is located at 1780 Bourbon Avenue in southwest Santa Rosa the site is in close proximity to transit stops schools and a future city park Bourbon Avenue apartments is being recommended for four project based vouchers and I'll pause here if there's any questions about this recommendation okay thank you next slide please the third project recommended for funding is the cannery at railroad square the cannery at railroad square is a proposed six-story building with seven studios 48 one bedroom and 74 two-bedroom units located at three west third street and 60 west sixth street in railroad square which will incorporate several elements of the original historic cannery building including the brick wall and the original water tower the project includes a total of 129 units with 33 project based voucher units dedicated to formerly homeless families over three one bedroom 22 two bedroom and eight three bedroom units this project is proposed by the john stewart company and is located in the northwest quadrant an adjacent to the smart train railroad square station construction isn't expected to begin in july of 2021 and be completed by june of 2023 this project is recommended for 33 project based vouchers and again i'll pause for any questions okay seeing no hands next slide please the fourth project recommended for funding for project based voucher funding is del nito apartments del nito apartments is an existing and occupied 206 unit affordable housing development in northwest san rosa del nito apartments was built in 1971 as a market rate development and was converted to affordable in the late 1990s the property was acquired by eden housing in 2012 with the intent of preserving affordability and rehabilitating the buildings and infrastructure of the property eden intends to leverage eight project based vouchers for four percent tax credits and other debt to continue renovating the property this project is recommended for eight project based vouchers and i will pause for any questions i have a question in this particular case if they don't get the if they don't get the funding the four percent funding are they going to go ahead and redo the units or what's going to happen to those units well we certainly hope that they will find alternative funding but this is the the plan is that yes they'll use these the eight project based vouchers to leverage debt to make the renovation of the property feasible and more competitive for the tax example on financing but eden has had the project since 2012 and if they do not meet the requirements of the rfp or of the meet the requirements for the HUD requirements for awarding project based vouchers then i'm sure they have another strategy potentially okay thank you rebecca thank you uh is this a um partial or total rehab meaning could uh they'll need no potentially come back for another request for funding um if this does not completely rehabilitate their property so the scope of work for this project i should note that um eden has uh has already completed a number of renovation projects since 2012 when they acquired the property um but this the scope of work uh under this um strategy would be new roofs gutters and eaves replacement windows to decrease compensation and increase energy efficiency in addition um to unit interior enhancements that are targeted for people with physical disabilities to make the units uh to improve accessibility in those units um and then also to target bathroom and kitchen fixtures uh to build those apartments that still have original fixtures thank you sure any other questions okay so next slide please so the final project recommended for funding is the linda tunas senior apartments linda tunas senior apartments is the planned rehabilitation of the scottish rite event center located at 600 acacia lane in the northeast quadrant of the city this project will provide 25 units of new affordable housing for extremely low and very low income seniors with the intent to provide affordable housing to seniors who were affected by the 2017 tubs fire as well as the 2019 and 2020 wildfires in and around san rosa the 26 studio units are proposed at approximately 370 to 400 square feet with a full bath kitchenette and semi-private sleeping area and this property is adjacent to larger acacia lane senior apartments which is also operated by the same developer by pep housing and so residents at linda tunas would have access to the amenities at acacia lane as well as have access to their own amenities at the linda tunas property the site is located 1.1 miles from a major grocery store and within 1.2 miles from large city park how it's park the project provides affordable needed affordable housing for extremely low and very low income seniors in the northeast quadrant in a service rich area construction on this project is anticipated to start by august of 2021 and be completed in march of 2022 and this is another project that did receive a previous allocation of eight vouchers and this allocation that we're recommending of five project-based vouchers would bring the total number of pvd units project-based voucher units to 13 out of 26 in the project so this linda tunas senior apartments is being recommended for five project-based vouchers any questions so next slide please so by way of review for the commissioners and for the benefit of the public this is a review of the existing active project-based voucher sites so currently the city of san rosa housing authority has in its portfolio the following sites we have units at the rosenberg building which is located in northeast san rosa it's right downtown that's a special needs development the bethlehem tower which is a senior development located in northeast san rosa crafting's on afton which is a targeted for families and that's in southeast san rosa yeah benton veterans village which is a vash project-based voucher site that's located in northeast san rosa and we also have purple apartments which is another family development and that is also located in northeast san rosa next slide please in addition to the active units that we have on the program we have the following projects in various stages of development which have received commitments of project-based voucher units so under under contract under the agreement to enter into a housing assistance payments contract we currently have windsor veterans village which is a vash project-based voucher property and serves as an opportunity to remind the commission and the public that we have an agreement with the san rosa county housing authority to administer the vash vouchers county-wide and that's just the agreement that we came to to reduce administrative burdens on each housing authority so the vash units in windsor under windsor veterans village are currently under an agreement to enter into a half contract and those are under construction the ultimatron apartments formerly known as ultimera apartments that's also a vash property located in san rosa in sonoma excuse me and that project is actively under leasing uh we're conducting interviews for leasing right now we anticipate that project will be moving ready by april uh stage commons is another special needs project that's going to be located in northwest san rosa that's dedicated for homeless and river city senior apartments is another vash site that's located in petaluma and in earlier stages of contract these are commitments that we've made by way of letter by way of resolution but have not yet entered into an agreement to enter into a half contract and that is caritas homes which is a special needs development located in downtown san rosa and heritage park which is a smaller vash development located in windsor next slide so this is a summary of what the entire san rosa housing authority project-based voucher portfolio will include if we incorporate today's recommendations if all 80 project-based vouchers are committed we will have 371 project-based voucher units representing 20 of our total budget authority which is the regulatory maximum when projects do not meet exceptions for special populations we would have a total of 16 sites with units for families households first with special needs such as homeless pet vash units and units for seniors next slide please so the following slides summarize the unanimous recommendations of the ad hoc committee and at this point i will pause for any additional questions before reciting the recommendation rebecca i would just like to verify what i heard you say so the city of san rosa is now responsible for all of the vash vouchers is that correct that's correct in the city of san rosa um contract with cudd we have 414 vash units the county did ultimately receive a small allocation in the last year or two i believe they have 10 to 15 uh vash units or vash vouchers um but the san rosa housing authority was the initial housing authority to apply for and receive the vash units back in 2009 and we've continued to build on that portfolio the results of the success of the program and um we entered into the agreement to administer the vouchers outside of the city of san rosa city limits prior to the county housing authority acquiring their own allocation of vash vouchers thank you thanks for the clarification rebecca i did a question so administratively was there any agreement to consolidate funding to administer these two programs or it is san rosa um paying for the administrative aspect of uh facilitation program no we um we administer the vouchers and that means that the administrative funding still comes to our agency any more comments from commissioners i believe we can now move to uh public comments rebecca just to clarify did you have um a couple more slides to go through i i do just um the recommendation so should i read the recommendation first or should we have public comment first i apologize i would say let's finish the presentation first okay so thank you um so is recommended by the housing authority project based voucher request for proposal at hot committee and the department of housing community services that the housing authority by resolution similar to the cdb gdr um structure of recommendations approve a conditional commitments of 30 vouchers to brj e phase one housing partners lp related california for 35 75 mendicino avenue phase one located at 35 75 mendicino avenue four vouchers to wsa burbank housing partners one lp waterstone residential for burbank avenue apartment located at 1780 burbank avenue 33 vouchers to the cannery at railroad square lp for the cannery at railroad square located at three west learned street and 60 west sixth street eight vouchers to eden housing development incorporated for del nido apartments located at 850 russell avenue and finally five vouchers to petaluma ecumenical properties dba pep housing for linda tunas senior apartments located at 600 ecu shalling and that concludes my presentation thank you thank you rebecca do we have uh public comments we are ready for public comments yes we do let me just get the slide up one moment please thank you kelly our first public comment will be phoning resident zero one nine one i have enabled your speaking permissions good afternoon again commissioner staff this is don lusty from john's tour company and i want to reiterate our sincere appreciation for the city's support of the cannery project and thank the ad hoc committee and the staff for all their time spent um analyzing and reviewing of these applications submitted for this rp in addition to strengthening our february tax credit and bond application these vouchers will allow us to serve 33 very low income formerly homeless families and we're really excited to get this project started thank you again thank you vice chair test i see no further hands raised and we received no email public comment on this item thank you as with the previous item on our agenda we will take uh separate motions for each of these five projects that we just discussed but is there a motion vice chair test if i may i'd like to make a motion to approve resolution of the housing authority in the city of santa rosa if i may i apologize uh commissioner burk if i may through the chair so i was just informed that there may be a typo in one of the resolutions and uh probably the best practice would be to just correct it right now i'm not sure if rebecca can speak to that or if megan is still on if she can address it i am still on uh and i believe the typo sorry was in the cdbg dr for linda tunas and i'm not sure if it carries over to the the project based voucher resolution and it's a simple typo with the address number being referenced as uh 625 and it should be 600 occasionally so we just wanted to bring that to your attention before the meeting concludes so that was a previous motion that's been approved so how do we proceed to well how do we proceed so we should we proceed to correct that one first or i i think that's an inadvertent error i i didn't realize exactly what the what the correction was so megan so that was in the in 14.1 yes i i don't think you need to have a another vote on that but if if we can correct it for 14.2 let's just do that perhaps the other one gets picked up in the minutes as a correction that housing authority could accept in the next series of minutes i think that that'd be appropriate thank you thank you gary bork were you willing to proceed i i am and so when we get to well i'll just go through there so uh a motion to approve resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa allocating 30 project based housing vouchers for 3575 mendicino avenue phase one awarding the brj e phase one housing partnership partner excuse me lp under a 20 year project based housing assistance payments hap contract thank you chair commissioner um we have a second for that motion i'll say yes i'll do the same way we go ahead go ahead i'll second it thank you commissioner downy okay then we'll do a roll call vote in regard to this resolution we'll start with commissioner berk hi and then commissioner downy commissioner olson hi and vice chair test okay the motion passes with four eyes no nays and uh chair chair owen abstain the next motion is for the burbank avenue apartments if i may i would like to make a motion to approve resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa allocating four project based housing choice vouchers for burbank avenue apartments awarding to wsa burbank housing partners partners uh one lp under a 20 year project based housing assistance payments hap contract thank you we have a second i'll second it thank you commissioner olson okay we'll now do a roll call vote in regard to this resolution i will start with commissioner berk hi and commissioner downy and commissioner olson hi and then vice chair test and the motion passes with four eyes no nays and chair owen abstaining thank you the next project we would be discussing for a motion is the cannery at railroad square i'm back motion to approve resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa allocating 33 project based housing choice vouchers for the cannery at railroad square awarding to the cannery at railroad square lp under a 20 year project based housing assistance payments hap contract thank you commissioner yeah i'll second that thank you commissioner olson for your second okay we will now do a roll call vote in regard to this resolution i will start with commissioner berk hi and commissioner downy then commissioner olson hi and vice chair test hi and the motion passes with four eyes no nays and chair owen abstaining thank you the next project downy apartments we have a motion if i may vice chair test motion to approve resolution of the housing authority of the city of santa rosa allocating eight project based housing vouchers for del nito apartments awarding to eden development Inc under a 20 year project based housing assistance payments hap contract thank you we have a second a second that thank you commissioner downy we will do a roll call vote in regard to this resolution as well excuse me was the second by commissioner downy or commissioner olson commissioner olson yes oh thank you well thank you also okay continue with the vote i will start with commissioner berk hi and commissioner downy commissioner olson hi and then vice chair test that motion passes with four eyes no nays and chair owen abstaining thank you a final project is the linda tunas senior apartments if i may vice chair test to make a motion to approve resolution of the housing authority the city of santa rosa allocating five project based housing vouchers housing choice vouchers for linda tunas senior apartments awarding to petaluma ecumenical properties dba pep housing under a 20 year project based housing assistance payments hap contract thank you commissioner berk we have a second wane i'll second it commissioner downy did you second that i think commissioner olson got that before i did okay look like a draw there i'm sorry wane i'm sorry it's okay okay we will now do a we'll call vote in regard to this resolution we'll start with commissioner berk hi commissioner downy commissioner olson hi and vice chair test hi and that motion passes as well with four eyes no nays and chair owen abstaining thank you well we're on our last item which is adjournment and i want to thank everybody especially the staff who put so many hours grueling hours i'm sure over weekends that were normally personal weekends um to be able to put together all of these projects and so succinctly and so expeditiously thank you so much thank you vice chair test and just once you know we develop these recommendations with a lot of thought and analysis and um and knowing that we can't please all the applicants so we appreciate your your support and your thoughtful questions during today's hearing just thank you reagan and i know only add that um thanks to all the applicants for the hard work that they put together and the hard work that they have before them and dealing with this and nicole i don't envy your work and megan's too i'm sure to and others to put together the reform out the applications to submit to hcd in a few days good luck and nicole it's glad to see you back thanks commissioner olson it's glad to be back well thank you everyone thank you commissioners