 and choose to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda. For privacy concerns, the host will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident and the last four digits of your phone number. The city of Santa Rosa is committed to creating a safe and inclusive environment free of disruption. We will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions and are well staffed to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed. If necessary, we will also immediately end the meeting. Host, can you please explain how the public comments will be heard 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 were 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 five. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. Okay, thank you. We will move to item number two, roll call. Mark, can you help with that? I can. We'll go ahead and do a roll call for attendance. I will start with commissioner Burke. Here. Then commissioner Downey. Commissioner Downey. Here. Commissioner McWhorter. Here. Commissioner Rawhouser. Here. Commissioner Latina. Here. Vice chair Owen. Here. And chair test. Here. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present. Item number three, statements of abstention. Any commissioner have a statement of abstention today? Seeing none. Item number four is study session. There are no study session items on the agenda today. Item five, public comments on non-agenda items. We are now taking public comments on item five, non-agenda matters. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on the agenda but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Comments from the public will be allowed on all agenda items at the time each item is called. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on the agenda but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes. Our first public comment will be from phone and resident ending in five, five, four, nine. I have enabled your speaking permissions if you could unmute yourself. Hello. Hi, let me go ahead and get the, we can, let me go ahead and get the timer started. I'll let you know when it's begun. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Hello, my name is Duane Dewitt. I'm from Roseland. I have a concern that the housing authority has not abided by the city council's policy to prioritize affordable rental housing as the number one need for the community. Numerous young people throughout my area and the city need rental housing. And yet the housing authority allows projects that have been approved to be for rentals to then be switched up for ownership. The prime example recently has been the Lantana development on what's now called Denton Meadows down by Bellevue Avenue at the furthest western south edge of Santa Rosa. Utilizing a bit of a sleight of hand, they're saying it's transit oriented and they switched it over to be for sale housing. That's not how it was supposed to be in the beginning. Some of your members, Mr. Burke, have been around long enough to remember that rental housing has been proposed out in southwest Santa Rosa for decades, starting with the Bellevue Ranch project in which 62 units of affordable rental housing were supposed to be built by the Tuxhorn Company. And instead what happened, it was switched up to be owner occupied self-help with Burbank housing and taxpayers money underwriting it instead of the developer. This type of thing has been happening now for decades. It needs to end. You need to, at the housing authority, stand true to the goal of affordable rental housing, scattered sites throughout the city, not just over in Roseland, my area, where most of it is steered towards and focused on. So please help us on that. And also, when the city declares properties as surplus, make sure that there are covenants in place that the housing that's going to be built, if it's called affordable, has covenants in place for long-term rental housing. This is what we need in downtown Santa Rosa. I'm sitting in downtown right now looking around where they've torn out things to put in parking lots. And now they're saying, okay, we don't need parking lots. And so you'll use those. Thank you kindly for taking the time to stand up for affordable rental housing to be built throughout the city of Santa Rosa, hopefully much more in downtown Santa Rosa, but in the areas to the northeast also. Bennett Valley, southeast also, over to the little golf course site. There you go, affordable rental housing. Thank you kindly for your time. Thank you, Mr. DeWitt. We are now moving on to approval of minutes. Commissioners, are there any comments on the August 23rd or September 13th minutes? I see no comments. I suggest we approve the minutes with the following minor corrections. On the August 23rd, 2021 minutes, page three, item 11.1, 11.1 occurred after the election of officers. And at the bottom of 11.1, when the motion was carried, it described Chair Owen and Vice Chair Diane Test that is backwards. Chair Owen is Vice Chair and I am Chair. Also on that same minutes on item, excuse me, 11.2, a motion was made by, it reads currently Chair Owen, just insert the word Vice Chair Owen. And also at the bottom of the motion that carried by the following vote, again, those two names and titles should be reversed. On the September 23rd, excuse me, 13th special meeting on page two, public comments by Robin Zimbler, the word manager, I believe, is misspelled. And those are all fairly minor comments. And I'm wondering if anybody has any other comments or concerns on this particular item. Chair Test, if I may. Yes. I have no other questions about the minutes and I support those changes that you made, but I do have a question. I think this is the right place to ask it. And that would be, what is the disposition of the bylaws? Are those changes been made that were mentioned in the minutes? And if so, is there a place where they can be reviewed? I'd like to call on Nicole Rathbun, interim manager who was handling this item. And she is on the meeting. She'll turn on her microphone and just a moment, please. Thank you, Chair Burke. Hi, good afternoon, Nicole Rathbun here. The updates to the bylaws are being implemented and can be distributed to the housing authority in email. Thank you. Do I have any further comments? Seeing no more comments, I would assume that we now have unanimous consent on items 6.1 and 6.2 under the approval of minutes. Next item is item number seven, proclamation presentations. It gives me great pleasure to announce we have a proclamation for appreciation of Phil Olson. It's a long one. I don't know if you can all see it. But it bears where reading the entire one, it's amazing. Whereas Phil Olson became a commissioner for the redevelopment agency of the city of Santa Rosa and the housing authority of the city of Santa Rosa in 2004. And whereas during Phil's tenure on the redevelopment agency, he participated in, oversaw the development of many projects benefiting the residents of Santa Rosa. In the Southwest, Santa Rosa Center, Grace Brothers, Gateways and Transit Oriented Redevelopment Project Areas. And whereas those projects included funding, the neighborhood revitalization and graffiti abatement programs to improve conditions in lower income neighborhoods throughout Santa Rosa through code enforcement and neighborhood outreach and other projects benefiting Santa Rosa's business and tourism industries, including the establishment of the Hyatt Vineyard Creek Hotel Conference Center. And projects improving the quality of life for all Santa Rosas, including the Colgan Creek bike path, Stony Point Road widening and Bayer Neighborhood Park and Gardens Project. And whereas during Phil's tenure on the housing authority, he participated in, so oversaw the development, rehabilitation and conversion of thousands of affordable housing units, including the Amarosa Village one and two, crossings at Aston, Catalina Town Homes, Herm Veterans Village, Apocoa Court, Apple Valley Lane and others, and assured their continued affordability for future generations of Santa Rosa residents where through ongoing compliance and monitoring. And whereas during Phil's tenure, the city with assistance from the housing authority opened two homeless shelters with more than 200 emergency shelter beds, assisted Catholic charities in purchasing the block for the development of Caritas Center. And whereas during Phil's tenure, the Housing Choice Voucher program grew by approximately 40%, earning the high performing agency toward the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 12 years and continues to provide ongoing rental assistance to over 2,000 households. And whereas the City of Santa Rosa, the former redevelopment agency of the City of Santa Rosa and the housing authority of the City of Santa Rosa have greatly benefited from Phil's leadership and insight. Therefore, be it be resolved that Phil is recognized as a consummate professional and will be remembered for the kindness and professionalism that he brought to the City of Santa Rosa. Be it further resolved that Phil Olson will be greatly missed and is hereby commended for his 17 years of commitment and contributions to the City of Santa Rosa. I don't know if we have Phil, if he has joined us or if he has called in, do we know, Megan? The Zoom host said she did not see him on the meeting. I know he was invited today. Kayleigh, if you could just check one more time would be appreciated. I am checking and unfortunately, I do not see him as a member. All right, well, that's unfortunate. We also will be giving Mr. Olson a copy of the proclamation so that he will have it for his reference. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to item number eight, staff briefings. All right, item 8.1 is the fiscal year 2020-21, fourth quarter financial report. Kate Goldfein, administrative services officer will be giving the report. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, test and housing authority commissioners. I am Kate Goldfein, administrative services officer for the Housing and Community Services Department. As Megan said, this memo details the unaudited fiscal year and 2021 financial report for the authority. I'll hit the highlights and be available for any questions. Looking at expenditures, the authority came in under budget in all categories. A particular note, 19% of the administration budget remained at year end due to several long-term vacancies and underutilization of services and supplies budget due to COVID. Housing assistance payments came in under budget as usual as the budget assumes that all of Santa Rosa's 1903 vouchers plus up to 300 porting clients per month are utilizing their vouchers every month of the year at an average rate. We need to have that budget available, but we know that it is unlikely to be used up because voucher status changes constantly as people move, their household composition changes, their income changes, et cetera. Moving on, you can see the authority expended and committed most of the loan activity funding to projects that are detailed in the memo. Again, as noted in the memo, subrecipient funding goes to face-to-face and fair housing advocates of Northern California and will be fully expended by the end of the current quarter. The authority committed the $38.4 million of CDBGDR to various projects in January. Trust staff are working through the funding agreements with the state. The remaining budget you see there is the administrative allowance that will carry over until it is fully utilized. Project expenditures are routine with the exception of One Time CARES Act, CDBG-CV funding for programs to assist persons experiencing homelessness who were affected by coronavirus, namely the Family Center Safe Social Distancing Program and the Samuel L. Jones Hall Homeless Shelter Annex. So moving to funding sources, again, I'll focus on the highlights. Federal grants, including CDBG, HOME, HAWKLA and CDBGDR are received on a reimbursement basis, meaning the developer or subrecipient will submit receipts to the authority and we will request reimbursement from the federal government. As projects commence building and expenditures occur, we will see that reimbursement increase. Additionally, the trust received larger amounts of larger amounts of housing impact fees and loan repayments than was budgeted and this funding is straight up used for loaned product by the trust. Funding that was received between July and December of 2020 is budgeted in the current year, 21-22 budget and funding that was received between January and June of 2021 will be budgeted in the 22-23 budget which we will start in just a few months. For federal grants for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, we received funding to cover the entirety of administration and rental subsidy, expenses for the year plus some additional funding for the CARES Act Administrative Allowance and the new American Rescue Plan Act, Emergency Housing Choice Voucher Program which is just starting to commence now. So that includes the brief, that concludes the briefing and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Okay, thank you. Housing Authority, do you have any questions of staff? If you do, could you please raise your electronic hand? Commissioner Downey. Hi Kate, if you're saying that we're coming in under budget, I'm assuming that we won't have any availability to those unused funds in the performance of carrying them over into the next fiscal year so they will just go away and we'll just start from scratch for the next fiscal year or will those extra allowances enable us to do more in the next fiscal year since we didn't use them in the previous fiscal year? So it's different for each program. So for the Housing Trust, any funding that is not used in the current fiscal year will carry over and any funding that is received in excess of the budget amount will also carry over. In the Section 8 program, it's slightly different. HUD allows a lots us monthly administrative and subsidy allowances based on our actual expenditures from previous months. So while we have a contract with HUD that limits our total grant at a certain amount, the funding that we get is based on our actual expenditures and in the most recent times when we have exceeded those expenditures on a monthly basis, HUD has given us the money to be able to cover them. So I know that's kind of a long answer but in the Trust, yes, the funding will carry over. In the Housing Choice Voucher Program, we received the funding that we need to cover the expenses for that month. Thank you. Nice chair, Owen. Dr. Downey pretty much asked the question I was going to ask and that would be the, if you look at the categories unused. So for administration and overhead, does that, what happens to those funds? So if they are federal funds, they carry over and we use them for loan product or we slightly increase our contract to face to face. If it is any kind of local funding would also just carry over to the next year for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. It's as I just answered a moment ago, we will receive the funding that we need to pay for the expenses for that year. We do have a HUD held reserve for administrative funding that's not held at our local level but HUD tracks the amount of administrative allowance that we are allowed to receive. And if our expenses come in over budget, they give us that money to cover the expense. And right now we do have some HUD held reserves for administration. Okay, thank you. I was looking at the, on the sources side. So as I go through these categories, cost recovery, is that federal funds? No, cost recovery is pretty much straight up overhead. So you may remember we did a pretty extensive overhead. Okay. That's a presentation I think in March of last year and that's the funding that the city's finance department, HR, city attorney's office, they charge us for their services and that's what that represents. As I go through these categories, federal grants for CDBG, HOM, HAWA, CDBGDR, property rental, that's the property on Brookwood, I believe. Housing impact fees, it's good to see that number going up because that shows more activity in the market rate arena and building houses, compliance monitoring fees, loan repayments, again, showing good activity in terms of projects being, I assume more successful than that originally anticipated so that those monies can come back in. Transfers in, we've discussed this, those are funds that are from the real property, transfer tax that come out of the general fund, those monies go there and then the city decides how much of those funds we get. My point is I'm looking at this and essentially none of the funds come out of the general fund for the city, is that correct? That is correct, we only get the real property transfer tax portion. And that's a pretty small percentage in terms of the overall sources of funds for the authority. Yes. The loan repayments, the excess of over $2 million, will that go back into the ability to have more funds into a NOFA? Yes, as I was describing during the briefing, the funds that are received during the first half of the year went into this year's NOFA that you guys have already allotted and then the funds received in the second half of the year will be in next year's budget, which will start in about three months, that's the 22-23 budget. And the state grants of 1.2 million, what are those grants for? So that is one grant, which is the Cal Home Disaster Recovery Grant. Okay, I don't have any other questions. Thank you, Kate. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Kate. We are now taking public comments on item 8.1. 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. You will have three minutes. Chair Tess, I see no hands raised at this time. Thank you. Moving on to item 8.2. Item 8.2 is the Housing Choice Voucher Program waiting list update. Rebecca Lane, Housing and Community Services Manager, overseeing the Housing Choice Voucher Program, will be making the presentation. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Tess and commissioners. As Megan said, my name is Rebecca Lane. I'm the manager of the Housing Choice Voucher Program and I'm here today to give you a briefing on some excitement that's been going on in our division. Next slide, please. So our waiting list for the Housing Choice Voucher Program is currently open and you may have heard about this on the local media. And so we're here today to give you some background on what's been going on. So the waiting list, the purpose of our waiting list is for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The city of Santa Rosa has a contract directly with the federal government, along with the Sonoma County Housing Authority, our neighboring jurisdiction also has a contract directly with the federal government for a certain number of Housing Choice Vouchers that can be allotted to residents of our jurisdiction. Generally speaking throughout the country, there are not enough vouchers under these contracts that are going to meet the local need. And so the response is that Housing Authorities are in charge of creating and managing their own waiting lists for the voucher program. Our contracts come with a specific number of vouchers for our jurisdiction. And at any time we're not allowed to lease up more than that number. So this does create a demand on the system and so we have a local waiting list. Next slide please. So the way that we have organized our waiting list in the city of Santa Rosa is by date of application and by lottery within the application year. So it's a bit of a hybrid of date and time and by lottery. So what this means is during the year that you applied for the waiting list, your specific rank number was determined at random by lottery during the time that you applied. And that entire group of people who all applied during the same opening are placed on the waiting list together in their random sort order. So what this means, for example, is that right now, the people who applied in the year 2018 are currently at the bottom of the list because that was the last time the waiting list was open. They were all organized within that grouping by lottery. The reason that we do the lottery system to organize the waiting list is for equity purposes. This means that it doesn't give you an advantage to apply on the first day. This means that it doesn't give you an advantage if you submit multiple applications. Everybody who applies during the waiting list opening is given equal chance to be placed on the waiting list and an equal chance at a higher ranking number versus a lower one. Our waiting list also does have some preferences. We have two limited preferences, which means that we're targeting a specific population and we are partnering with a specific organization for those vouchers to be distributed. So we have one limited preference for people who are homeless and those vouchers are referred through the coordinated entry system. We also have a limited preference for people who are survivors of the 2017 wildfire disaster and we partnered with the local long-term recovery center for the distribution of those vouchers. We also have one absolute preference that we've never had to enact and I hope we never will. That is if the housing authority ever needs to terminate assistance to someone because of a lack of funding, those people would be given first priority if we have funding restored and are able to give out vouchers again. Our current waiting list has 2,988 households. We also use this existing waiting list for people who are interested. We survey the existing waiting list every time we have openings or we have a new project coming online through the project-based voucher program. So what this means is that if you're already on the general waiting list and you happen to qualify for and are interested in a project-based site, we'll let you know that that opportunity exists and you can also sit on a waiting list for that particular site. So these do tend to have particular eligibility that might not apply to everybody who's on the waiting list. For example, two of our sites right now, the Rosenberg Building and the Bethlehem Tower, those are for specific populations. Those are for people who are elderly or people who are disabled. Similarly, some of our project-based sites have a household composition size requirement because of there being multiple bedrooms in those properties. So the crossing on Aston is all three-bedroom units. So you have to have at least four people in your household in order to be able to qualify for that property. So that's an example of when we're surveying the existing waiting list for project-based interest. We're also letting people know that the people who are gonna apply for that list need to meet those particular criteria for those sites and also be interested in living in those particular areas. So next slide, please. So in general, our waiting list is open every two years for new applications. And then in the alternate years, we'll update the waiting list. So what this means is that we'll ask everyone on the waiting list to confirm that they're still interested in the program. A lot of times people apply and then find out later that they don't need the assistance anymore or they've moved out of the area. So that gives us an opportunity when we're going through an updating list to make sure that we have current contact information as well as making sure that everyone is still eligible and interested in being on the waiting list. Historically, what we've done is print out paper applications for the waiting list lottery, which we distribute throughout the community. We have lots of social service partners who would order stacks of papers that they could distribute through their offices. These are all also would be available in our lobby through the local libraries. But clearly COVID-19 changed the circumstances, particularly what we can do around availability of paper applications face to face. So we had been working on a conversion to an electronic waiting list. That's what we'll start talking about in a few minutes. But so in addition to needing to change our procedures because of COVID-19, we also did not have an opening as we normally would have in the year 2020. So that's the waiting list is open now instead of last year. Next slide, please. So what we did, we had been in development on an electronic version of our waiting list since 2019. And what we were originally scheduled to do was to have the waiting list opening, the first waiting list opening using the electronic format that was scheduled to occur in 2022. But after having to skip the opening in 2020, we decided that we would forge ahead and use the electronic waiting list for the 2021 opening. So we reset our timeline a little bit, has a response to the pandemic, but that did ultimately allow us to launch our online waiting list earlier than we were scheduled to. The online waiting list gives us a greater access to a wider audience of people because we don't have to rely on the paper. It also reduces the administrative burden significantly. And we do still have alternate access to the waiting list for those who request it. So if you do not have internet access, you do not have a cell phone, or if for some reason you can't use a computer, then we do still have a process in place for people to request a paper application that will still be entered and treated the same way during the opening. Next slide, please. So we've done a pretty massive outreach effort, which you may have seen or heard throughout the community. We are doing radio advertisements on most of the local radio stations, both English and Spanish radio. We're doing print ads in print publications, again, both in English and Spanish. We're doing a lot of social media outreach. Social media is great because those advertisements can link directly to the application. We also have posters all throughout our transit system that are in English and Spanish. So some of these pictures here on the slide are just samples of what's been out in the community. We're also, we've done press releases. So, and this outreach began in mid-September, so we could let people know that it was coming. And then we increased the number of postings and advertisements once the waiting list was actually open so that people could link directly through to the application. Next slide, please. This is the one I'm not sure. I hope it will work. So if we click fast forward on this video or play, we should be able to see a little bit of a sample of how this is taken from a how-to video that we did that we can send out to people who are having trouble if they are having trouble figuring out the application. So this just shows everybody how to use it. And this also gives you an idea of what it looks like. We spent a lot of time in the development stage testing and making sure that the questions were phrased in a way that was understandable but still met the federal requirements of what we need to ask. And we think we did a pretty good job, ultimately, in putting together an application process that is both simple for people to use and also gets all of the information that we need to gather during the process. Next slide, please. We don't have to finish the video. So the opening has been going very well. We received 3,303 lottery applications by the end of the first 15 days of the opening. As of today, the total number received is 4,355. We also have a way of being able to reach out to people who have started an application but haven't finished it. We email those people, a group of those people, once a week just to make sure you didn't actually submit your application. Do you wanna make sure that you do? So we can communicate with people even who haven't finished the process. We also provide technical support five days a week. So during normal business hours, we have at least two staff members who are well-trained in the various technical questions that can come up and they're available to help people if they're just a little bit stuck on the website or have questions about it. And again, we do still have the alternate access available for people who cannot access the system online. We have multiple community partners engaged in this process. People know to call if they have clients who need to have a paper application mailed to them. We have a lot of community partners who have used the online system on behalf of their clients if they have their clients permission. So we know that our community partners who normally worked with us during the paper application process have all come on board to this online version. Our marketing and outreach is gonna continue through October so that we're letting people know through the end that the application is available and it will be until October 31st. Next slide, please. And that's it. So I'm happy to take any questions that you have about the waiting list openings. And please spread the word. Thank you, Rebecca. That was an outstanding presentation. Thank you. We have any quick, oh, I do see a couple of hands. Commissioner Downey. Thank you, Rebecca. I read about this in a newspaper in a print in San Francisco. I'm a little confused about the term a lottery. And then I'll move on to my second question. So can you elaborate on how the term lottery is operating in this capacity? Sure. And it is a question we get a lot. So what happens is everybody who's applying right now, so the 4,000 some odd applications that we have as of this morning will be added into a lottery along with everybody else who applies before the deadline of 11.59 PM on October 31st. All of those people are gonna be entered into a lottery for number one placement on the list because we may not be able to add everyone who's applied onto the list. So placement on the list and then ranking on the list. So if you apply in the year 2021, you will be, if you are entered into the lottery, you will be placed on what's after the year 2018. So you're at the bottom of the waiting list. You have the longest wait, but the randomization is for placement on the list and then the order in which those people in that group where they land, where their specific rank number is. So if you apply this year, and if I apply this year, you and I have, you're going to be in the 2021 grouping, but you might end up with the highest rank number in that group and I might end up with the lowest rank number in that group. It's just done randomly so that it is equitable. Does that help? Yes. And the second question I had, I think I was reading something about a number 700 and change. I didn't know if that referred to the amount of vouchers available or if I was misreading another article. That number, was that something in my presentation today or something that you read? I'm sorry. Something in the SF gate, I'm sorry. Oh, okay. So we didn't do any advertising as far as San Francisco, but we did do some press releases. So there may be information that was picked up. I wasn't contacted by that publication for information. So I, and I don't know what article you're referring to. So I'm sorry, I'm not sure how to answer that. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Burke. I thank you. Yeah, this is very sophisticated. Someday I'll have to tell you a war story about how it wasn't quite as sophisticated many, many years ago. Yeah, it's a great job, really impressed. I'm just curious, it's just curiosity, but what's the technology or what's the process that you use for performing the lottery? Is that some type of a electronic app? Yeah, so we did this in the before times too, in the paper version Excel actually has a randomizer program that we use. And then we're, after much sort of contemplation about how we should do it electronically, we decided to continue using the Excel version because that's well accepted by the industry and is a trusted source of randomization. So we'll extract all of the applicants and then use that randomizer and then apply that information to the electronic way. Thank you. Unfortunately, you didn't do very well on the example that you just provided with you and Commissioner Downey competing. Yes, it's okay. And then how do port-ins affect the process, Rebecca? They are completely separate. We accept port-ins from other jurisdictions all over the country. And unless there is very extreme financial reason that HUD has told us we're allowed to say we can't serve you, we accept those vouchers. So we actually have over 200 port-ins from other jurisdictions. So we administer those vouchers. If we don't have the funds to absorb them into our program, then we won't. So that keeps things separate. We can serve our local community with our vouchers and still serve people from other jurisdictions because we just bill those housing authorities for the assistance. So thank you. So it sounds like we're about 10% of the total number of people that are assisted under the Housing Choice voucher program that are port-ins. Right. And then this solicitation is really focused primarily on Sonoma County, is that correct? Right, all of our advertising is through Sonoma County publications. So as Commissioner Downey saw, word may be spreading throughout the Bay Area, but our advertising and outreach has just been to our local partners. It certainly has been effective. Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Owen. Thank you, Rebecca. Good presentation. So it's hard to see on screen as you're going through the applications. One of the things we've tried to do is we go through our point system later in today's agenda and we look at how we're trying to match supply of limited funds to the demand for those funds. And I, basically the vouchers is a good indicator of what we need. Are we able to track with the application demographics in regard to household size and income? And do we stratify the vouchers for studio one bedroom family units because obviously a voucher for a family unit will take more dollars than a voucher for a studio unit? Yes, we absolutely will be able to do that much easier now that we'll have all this information online. That's one of the reasons that we decided to go to an electronic waiting list because that data was much harder to track if we had it at all. We had very limited data about the households who were applying when it was on paper. So we will be able to more specifically target, for example, we'll already know if your household size qualifies you for one of the project-based voucher sites, for example. So we will be able to have more demographic information available not only to report out on just in general about demand and need in our area, but also for specific uses of our funds. And then can you discuss, there's a wait list, I understand, of housing properties that don't have vouchers or not project-based vouchers, but generally fall into a category of more affordable and they're willing to take those vouchers. How does that cross-section work with, so you've been lucky enough to get a voucher. Here's a list of properties that are accepting those vouchers and keeping in mind that there's now legislations you can't discriminate based upon those vouchers. So taking that issue off my question table, but basically how does that work so you can match up about your recipient with an owner that's not project-based but just as willing to take those units? How does that process work? Sure, that's part of our outreach as well. And we're working sort of after the waiting list opening is over, we'll be working on another project that is specifically about landlord outreach also online. We're brainstorming and researching right now if we will be able to execute a similar online system for landlords to access our current landlords to be able to access information about their payment history and things like that. So we're gonna make it easier for landlords to participate, which we think will help. But what we always do, regardless of what projects we're working on going forward is we have advertising available, free advertising for vacancies. So if you're a landlord who wants to specifically advertise your rental unit to people with vouchers who are looking for housing and we can take that information, we hand that off to any family who is looking. We will do that at our briefings. Like, so when you first come on to the program, we hand out the currently available vacancy listing as well as all the other information that we have such as lists of affordable housing properties where as I said, often are willing to accept the voucher. Accept the voucher. We also connect people, as you mentioned, the legislation is in place prohibiting discrimination based on voucher status. So we have ways to have that conversation with a landlord if a tenant tells us that they're having issues like that that they're being told no, we can have those conversations with property owners. We also, if we feel it's necessary, we can certainly talk to our fair housing advocates about that. Thank you. Is one last question. Is there a package available for potential landlords that explains how the voucher system works so that they have an understanding that tenants can pay their rent on any number of days but on the first, you get X immediately? Yes, we certainly do. Yeah, we have an FAQ, a frequently asked questions documents for landlords. We have a sample contract. We have all kinds of stuff in one little packet that we can shoot out through email. Yes. Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you, Rebecca. Are there any other questions, commissioners? Dr. Downey, I think. Yes, commissioner Downey, I see his hand. Thank you. This is a long standing conversation that went back to Carmelita. And one of the questions I was asking was, is the city in a position to act as a co-signer for landlords that might be hesitant about tenants who are income sensitive, damaging rental properties. And I don't know that conversation went anywhere to help appease tenants. I mean, landlords forfearing that their rental property is going to be damaged in any way with no way to get any recovery for extending themselves to section eight. Well, so when we hear this question, one of the first things that we like to sort of reset and acknowledge is that a property owner is not necessarily taking any greater risk on with a voucher holder than any other tenant in the marketplace. But recognizing that this is a common concern because what we hear from the property owners that we've talked to about this is that it's not necessarily that they believe that a voucher holder is at higher risk of causing damage to a unit. What the concern is that that person might not have the funds to help cover damages to the units should it be an issue. So we do have a pilot program that is operating right now through a contract with Catholic Charities through our homeless services partners to offer a damage mitigation fund that has not been tapped into yet, but it is available as a pilot and with some of the homeless services dollars and depending on how that goes, then it may be something that we expand in the future. Thank you. Thank you, that's further than I anticipated, that's great. I don't see any further hands. So at this point, I will open now to public comments. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you were dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. If I urge your test, I am seeing no hands raised at this time. Thank you. We'll move, excuse me, we will move on to number nine, Chairman Commissioner reports. There are none on the agenda today. Item number 10, committee reports. Again, there are no committee reports on this agenda. Therefore, we're moving to item number 11, executive director reports and communication items. 11.1. All right, attached to your agenda materials is a memo from Nicole Rathbun, who is our interim housing and community services manager, outlining the review of the NOVA points committee. This just concluded last week, which is why we are presenting it to you as a communication item and not a presentation in the essence of time. If there are any questions, Nicole is available to answer them. But again, this is intended to strictly be a communication item. All right, and if there aren't any questions, just wanna make the housing authority commissioners aware in the next few weeks and months, we will have several opportunities to participate in celebrations of new affordable rental housing projects that the housing authority has been involved with. Some of the opportunities that will be popping up on your calendars will be the Linda Tunis Senior Rental Apartments. And that's going to be at the end of October. So that should be forthcoming soon. And that is 26 units of senior rental housing with CDBG DR and project-based vouchers. We'll also have the site formerly known as Journey's End at 3575 Mendocino Avenue. That's going to be, I believe, the mid, beginning to mid-November. And again, this was funded with CDBG DR and project-based vouchers. And then you'll also have an invitation for the official celebration of Lantana, which is the rental community that was mentioned during public comments. This was a rental project that was converted to ownership. And this was presented to the housing authority numerous times and was repositioned due to financing. So we are attempting to make the project work and you'll be invited to celebrate that success for new homeowners within our community. I'd be happy to answer any questions about my remarks. Any questions of staff at this time? And commissioners, seeing none. Now open item number 11.1 stating, we are now taking public comments on item 11.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're calling in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Chair Tess, I'm seeing no hands raised at this time. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is consent items number 12. And there are no consent items. Number 13, report items. All right, 13.1 is a report. Request to housing authority for recommendation to city council that city on property located at 625 and 637 Third Street, 705th Street and 505th Street be declared as surplus by the State Surplus Lands Act. And Jill Scott, our real estate manager will be making the presentation. Good afternoon, Chair Tess and commissioners. As Megan said, I'm Jill Scott and the city's real estate manager. And I'm here today to request the housing authorities review and recommendation to city council regarding the three parcels that Megan listed as being considered declared for surplus action. And this action is required by the State Surplus Lands Act and the Housing and Community Services Department for the state in order for us to put forward a notice of availability for affordable housing. Next slide, please. So downtown development, as most of you are, I'm sure aware of, the city council is actively initiating new development in downtown Santa Rosa to assist in the new development for consolidated mixed use projects that include affordable housing. They have asked us to look at our city-owned assets and see if any of these are available and could be used for redevelopment. Specifically, a lot of our surface parking lots and garages in the downtown area where we could retain the public parking and a new development and look at a more denser, higher use that would include housing, affordable housing and mixed use. This whole process that we have to go through in order to look at these is governed by the State Surplus Land Act and the State Department of Housing and Community Services. And as part of that, they require, even though we're replacing this public parking, they require us to actually state that these parcels are surplus. Next slide, please. So the city-owned parcels in discussion today, there's three parking assets that we're looking at. The first one is 625 and 637 Third Street, also known as Parking Garage 5, 705th Street, Parking Lot 10 and then 505th Street, which is Parking Lot 11. Next slide, please. Here's a look at highlighted in blue. This is the two lots for a parking garage and this is Parking Garage 5, which is located on 3rd and D on the corner of it right across the street from 3rd Street Ale Works. And it is a garage and again consists of two different parcels. Next slide, please. This is Surface Parking Lot 10, which is located behind Russian River Brewing. And you can see where we also have a piece of right-of-way called Jeju Way. So that's another thing I'll address in a little bit about how we need to reserve that as well. Next slide, please. And then this is Parking Lot 11. It is also a Surface Parking Lot one parcel and it's located on the corner of 5th and B Street. Next slide, please. So for a little bit of background, our city council surplus policy says that land that's capable of independent development must be referred to the Housing Authority and to the Planning Commission for recommended action to council under government code 54222. Following Housing Authority and Planning Commission recommendations as those both happen, the city council would be asked then to declare the parcel surplus or to review to be declared surplus as required by the Surplus Lands Act, also known as the SLA. And it would also require that future development of these parcels be subject to the replacement of public parking, which exists on these lots now. It would also be subject to reservation of right-of-way. There could be other pieces of right-of-way, but also Jeju Way, which we have talked about now for access would be one of them. It would be subject to general plan, zoning code, bicycle and pedestrian master plan, and the downtown stationary specific plan. Additionally, we've been talking to a lot of downtown businesses, which would be, and we'll continue to talk with them and work with them all the way through this, but they would be affected by these new redevelopments in the downtown. And they will have some specific needs that we're gonna need to address with any developer, affordable housing director, developer or otherwise, such as those restaurants have garbage dumpsters, which are in these lots that we'll need to address and make part of any new development. They need specific access for what their restaurant or whatever their business is. So they'll still need access to the back. So we'll be looking for these developers to come up with some great plans, hopefully development plans to really work on getting more housing and more mixed use in the downtown, but meeting the needs of the residents and the businesses that are already there. Next slide, please. So the process for this, if city council elects to declare the parcels a surplus, staff will then submit a notice of availability to the State Department of Housing and Community Services, which is required by the government code 54222. And then the city will hopefully negotiate with any respondents to the notice of availability and go to faith with the intent of entering into an exclusive negotiation agreement or an ENA as we call it, for the development of these parcels. So this notice of availability goes to all of the low income sponsors that have signed up for the state's HCD's list. And I believe there's over 5,000 of them at this time. As I said, we would negotiate with those in good faith. Hopefully we can get to an ENA. And then we would take that ENA to city council for comment, for review, and then hopefully approval and adoption. If the city were not successful in negotiation with these affordable housing sponsors on the HCD's list, then the parcels would likely be made available for infill development. And that would go through a whole process for a request for proposal and qualifications for qualified developers. So in this case, the development wouldn't be 100% affordable as with the retention of parking as well. It would be at a minimum of a 15% affordable housing units will be required in these developments if it goes to that place. Next slide, please. And then the recommendation today, it's recommended by the real estate services division, the transportation and public works and planning and economic development departments that housing authority by resolution recommend to city council that the properties located at 625 and 637 Third Street, parking garage five, 705th Street, parking lot 10, and 505th Street, parking lot 11 be declared a surplus as required by the Surplus Lands Act and a notice of availability for affordable housing on public land be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Services. And I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Commissioner Downey. Thank you, Jill. I am familiar with the property behind Russian River Brewery and the corner of, I think, Third and it's not D Street, but it's across the street from I think Barnes and Noble. And I would just be curious as to how that those quote unquote parking lots could be developed as it's so congested downtown. I'm just trying to imagine how you would interest all this and still provide a place for people to park their cars. I'm surprised that these properties parking areas aren't being thoroughly used right now and would be considered surplus. So I'm not quite sure what my question is other than I know that downtown is already so impacted or congested that maybe I'm just voicing more of a curiosity as to what this would look like going forward, especially with the accommodation of affordable housing. And I'm happy to respond to that. So any development on any of these lots would be required to replace the parking. So it would still be public parking fire. That would be a requirement of the development. So it would just be a tall or higher development. So we have a lot of surface area that's not being used right now or second foot garage, parking garage five, it's an older garage that needs a lot of maintenance. So rather than the city putting the money into just redoing the garage or just redoing the surface lot, we'd like to look into and talk with developers to see if anyone is interested to come in and make a taller or linear structure that includes the parking, but also brings in some mixed use housing, affordable housing as well. So if we're going up, we can get more for our money than not. So we still have that retention of the public parking. And also as part of the downtown station or specific plan and council's goals, we're trying to look at more transit oriented development. So we're beefing up the transit surface, we've got the smart station now downtown. So we're trying to put all this into developments to create a more usable downtown, bring more housing downtown to be able to activate the downtown in the evening time as well as the day for the businesses and housing is usually the component in that area that we'll do that. Does that address your comment? It does. And I'm also appreciative of Vice Chair Owen writing a bicycle, because that really does help. With that, we will move next then to Vice Chair Owen. Well, thank you, Commissioner Downey. I think that's, I guess the question is that having been involved with financing development for affordable housing and commercial and market rate, I look at the pieces of property that are being designated the third street garage, the two parcels on Fifth Street, the backup to restaurants that were, Jill, you talked about the difficulty of having to have trucks go in and there to supply these restaurants and their trash and closures are in there. I just look at these parcels as being incredibly difficult to try and develop. And then also the interim as to if that did go through what would happen with the parking during construction and what would happen. And the question I do have is, was there any thought to the parcel at 733rd Street, which is a city-owned parking lot that backs up to an office building that's on 3rd, 2nd and E Street, much larger parcel. And it doesn't, those are not restaurant uses in there that I can see. Was that parcel, how, basic questions, how did the city come up with these three parcels first and not that parcel on 733rd Street? So we looked at, this may not be the end of the parcels that we look at, but there were a lot of criteria that we put in into looking at these. And the biggest, one of the main criteria was the location number one. And we saw a lot of developer input as well and downtown input as well. And we will get more and more downtown input as this process goes along. But we did look at the age of the structure and the money that needed to be put, the investment that needed to be put into the structure itself. So rather than the city investing or the parking district investing into these structures prior to doing that, we'd like to see if the development is possible. We did have some massing studies done on lots 10 and 11 to see if it was possible and if we could fit all of that in there. And we do have some preliminary studies that show that it is. And so we'd like to put these out before we put an investment into them to see if they do work for development. But it may not be the last of the ones that we put out. You may have seen that we recently sold parking lot two, which is across from Macy's to cornerstone development, which is a very similar thing. They're gonna be replacing, it's a public parking lot. We sold it to cornerstone and have a development agreement with them where they will be replacing the parking and then building up. So a lot of housing and other commercial uses. Is there a time constraint as to when the RFPs would go out and evaluated and determination that these parcels in the development community are not considered feasible? How does that process work? So the process is all governed by the surplus lands act, which is a newer process. There's always been a surplus lands act, but it was updated and changed in 2018. And so it is all governed by that. So the process looks something like it will go to housing authority planning commission and then it would go to council for review. If council decides they do wanna declare them surplus. And I know that's a very confusing item for everyone. It was confusing to us as well in the beginning because needing replacement parking is seems counterintuitive to being surplus. We still need that and we still need parking and we wouldn't do anything with the parcel if we couldn't retain parking. But it is a requirement of the surplus lands act. The second requirement of the surplus lands act is that we make this notice availability to make it available to housing sponsors on their list for low income properties. So we need to do that. It has to remain on their list for 60 days. And then we have 90 days in which we would, in good faith, negotiate towards an ENA with any housing sponsor. So that is the process we'll have to go through first. Although we would love to see affordable housing downtown complete affordable housing, we are concerned that it potentially wouldn't pencil out for them because of the retention of the parking. And we think that likely we'll have to go to Enfield developers on an RFP basis after that. But there is a process that we have to follow first. So if it didn't work out, we're probably not looking at an RFP until spring of next year, early spring. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner Rawhouser. I'm more kind of have a comment about the vertical building because where I am, they're doing a lot of vertical building and they're putting in three story complexes all along the hill sides. And with more skyscraper conversations being talked about and that we're gonna build up and create our community to be a vertical community instead of a basically a tree emphasized community. I feel that we have to be conscious of not losing the aesthetics of what we love about our community, which is the landscape and the hills. And I feel that it's a disservice to those who have lived in the community to not be mindful of the vertical building, especially along all the hill sides. And that's just a comment, which may or may not go anywhere. Thank you, Commissioner Rawhouser. Commissioner Burke. Thank you, Chair Tess. The comments provided by just all three of the other commissioners are all resonate with me. I think that the downtown vision has been for a long time to be more dense and to create more activity. And so if you are gonna have more density that's the place to have it. I think there's other places in the city where retaining kind of a more rural tree oriented I guess plan it makes more sense in my mind. But anyway, so given the fact that greater density has really been a goal for a long time. First of all, I wanna say, Jill, thanks for the very good presentation on all of this. And I suspect that whoever comes up, whatever submittals the city receives, they are gonna be very complex and difficult to achieve. And hopefully there's a way to do it. But in larger cities, there is a breakthrough and there is a way to develop more densely, successfully, certainly you can see it in places like San Francisco or joining communities like maybe Emeryville or even in San Rafael recently. So, but I've got a couple of questions which are more along the lines of the first one has to do with kind of the broader implementation of the state code, the SLA. I don't recall too many for a long time of these coming to us for surplus land. And so maybe you can talk a little bit about what makes these properties unique. And will we expect to see more of these and why haven't we seen more life this in the past? Thank you, Commissioner Burke. You haven't seen many surplus actually forward of any type for the last few years because we just haven't had the stable ability to be. I would expect that you will see more coming forward in the next few years, not just for development in the downtown, but also for selling off of or selling of small parcels that we have and don't need that the city owns and doesn't need any longer that may be for development or may not be for development in the future. So, mostly I think what you haven't seen it is because we just haven't had the staff at the time to be able to bring it forward. And we've really seen a push from the city council and the community to really start looking for that infill development in the downtown area, especially the city council. And so these are the few, in that we've been looking towards developers to be buying property or using property but it's been brought to our attention that it's also important for the city if you look at what other cities have done and you mentioned some of them, San Rafael, Emeryville, Oakland, San Jose, all over Sacramento, they have looked at their city owned assets as sort of leverage to be able to gain some housing and some low income housing in their downtown port areas. So I do expect you to see more if these are successful. And so far, lot two is the first one that we've done and so far so good. So we'll see how this goes. Thank you, Jill. Question, I guess, maybe to Megan and Nessa, are we on the list, the state's list as a housing authority to be notified? I mean, I realize we're in this process from a different angle, but if we had not been, would we receive a notification? That is a good question. I'll have to verify the list. We do just in the event that other jurisdictions or special districts are suppressing some of their land, we in turn, as a city are notified. So we do receive notifications from other jurisdictions, but I will verify that we are on the state's list. I just wanted to point out too that the housing authority was able to take advantage of one of the city's recent surplus opportunities. And that was with the Bennett Valley Apartments, which is the old Bennett Valley Senior Center that we were able to run a solicitation on and are actively pursuing that as 60 plus units of rental housing for homeless and very long-term households. Good point, thank you. This other one is, it's probably just more an observation and I think it's very hypothetical, but let me ask it anyway. If the housing authority were interested in the purchase of one of these sites, this one or other sites to come up in the future, what role would the housing authority have in, well, so there would be a situation where the housing authority could be competing with others for proposals to purchase the site. And at the same time, the Department of Housing and Community Services, in this case anyway, would be responsible for administering that competitive process. I could see that as possibly being a bit of a conflict in the process, that is a hypothetical, I realize. I mean, that could happen, I guess, but I would hope that Megan and I are in contact all the time as well as with planning and economic development and we're looking at city parcels and working with housing constantly to see if there's something that the housing authority and the city can do together prior to working at any other sort of development. The downtown parcels, because of the density that's needed, we hadn't thought that the housing authority would be, that would be a great fit because it's a pretty large project and a lot of density that's needed, but we are always looking and talking to the housing authority and to Megan first about what they would could do. So I would hope that we wouldn't be in a situation where you would be competing. I mentioned this, it's really a her hypothetical. I don't see there being a housing authority interest, but I mean, I could find out that four of my fellow housing commissioners say, we would really like to have one of those for affordable housing. And then I would raise this problem, which I suspect is not gonna happen. But I suppose if that were to happen, there might be some other relationship in terms of the department that is responsible for the solicitation of proposals. And that's always an option. If I could interject too, the housing authority generally facilitates the affordable housing development process. So in this case, Jill and her team and the city will be looking for an experienced developer with the capacity and financial backing to take a project all the way to construction, whereas that's something that we're normally soliciting for and providing financial assistance to. So the rules are a little bit different in what we traditionally do and what the city would be looking for for these particular sites. Thank you. Thank you. I had a question. Looking at the materials in our package under environmental impact, I didn't see anything, and there's a lot of definitions, but I didn't see anything that talks about potential of toxic substances. And I'm wondering if that is included within the environmental impact that has already happened or is it excluded? And would we in any way or the city be liable if there was? So that's all part of a normal city acquisition for buying, selling, or leasing. So it wasn't included. Well, there was a component included in the downtown stationary specific plan, M&D, which was done over the whole area in the downtown. So there was a component included in that. It would have found if there were any sort of phase one issues that we were aware of. But usually as part of the city process for acquisition or lease, we're looking at a phase one at least process, which would look into any kind of contamination or anything. And as far as the city's liability about is taking care of as best as we can through our legal contracts when we lease or sell or buy property. Thank you. Commissioner Downey, I see you have another question. Thank you. I'm directed more towards Megan and Jill. And that's to clarify the role of the housing trust. Now, I'm aware that the housing authority cannot own property, but I'm not real clear about the housing trust as being able to own surplus properties and then to contract the building and developing those surplus properties on behalf of the city. Is that even remotely accurate or mind just completely out in the weeds? The housing authority does have a physical asset. As we discussed several months ago, you own the property located at 983 Sonoma Avenue, which is currently occupied by Santa Rosa Community Health Center. So that is an asset of the housing authority. We don't hold any rental housing. We simply fund it and oversee the compliance of those units. There's nothing that prevents us from doing that, although it would be a shift in the responsibility and requirements of the housing authority. So we provide financial assistance, whether it be tenant-based vouchers or project-based vouchers. And then we provide loans which do secure long-term affordability over units. And we provide compliance monitoring for those. Thank you, Commissioner Downey. Vice-Chair Olin. Question is, I'm looking up in the lot two was referenced and it's just while we're sitting here, I'm looking up information on public record on that. So that property sold from the city of Santa Rosa to Cornerstone Communities II in August of this year for a million 340, which is a little over $20 per square foot, that's a good price. So that million 340, that goes to the city of Santa Rosa as the seller, I assume. So in this case, if the city were to sell these lots, where would the proceeds of those sales go? Would they go into the housing authority to be able to supplement our efforts for affordable housing? Did they go into the city's general fund? What happens to the sale proceeds for those lots? So just as with lot two, all the proceeds from any of these lots go to the parking enterprise district because that's who, although the city is the only owner of property, that's who manages and maintains those properties. So any proceeds from any of these sales, if we do sell and it's not necessarily going to be a sale, it could be a very long-term lease. Any of those proceeds would go to the parking enterprise district where we'd go back into the enterprise fund for maintenance and building of any other lots, garages, or anything in the downtown district. Okay, thank you. Any other commissioner comments? To follow up to that question. So, Jill, are there any entities of the city that aren't required to comply with the state code? No. Thank you. Thank you, Jill. Excellent presentation. You're welcome. Thank you, everyone. So if I can remind you, this does require action by the housing authority. So Jill presented a recommendation and we'd be looking for a commissioner to provide a motion and then hopefully there'll be a second. So, excuse me. So we would move for a motion and a second and then open it up to public comment. Okay. We have a motion. I'd be happy to make a motion. I second it. Thank you. It would be specifically the resolution of the housing authority of the city of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council declare the property located at 625 and 637 Third Street, parking garage five, 705th Street, parking lot 10, and 505th Street, parking lot 11 as surplus as required by the Surplus Lands Act and a notice of availability to the State Department of Housing and Community Services for availability for affordable housing be submitted. And I would suggest that we waive the reading of the text. Thank you. We'll now move forward for public comment on item 13.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you were dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Our first public comment will be from Natalie. Natalie, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Can you turn your speaker? We can. Can you confirm that you see the timer on your screen? Yes, I do. Perfect. Please identify yourself for public record and your time begins now. Thank you. Hi, my name is Natalie Chalorzo and my husband and I own Russian River Brewing Company located at 725 Fourth Street. We've been in business for nearly 18 years and our destination for local and enthusiasts from all around the world and have remarkably managed to survive the great recession, floods, wildfires and now a global pandemic. Our concern is regarding the fate of parking lot 10 which is located in the 700 block of Fifth Street, which is one of the lots that Jill included in her proposal to the commission. Aside from our regular restaurant operations, we are also a manufacturing brewery at our downtown location which is our primary business and income source. We rely on access through that parking lot to conduct our brewery operations. My husband and I have a very important decision to make. It is time for us to decide whether or not we wish to extend our lease for another 10 years. I have been aware of this possibility of a development of this lot for a while now but now it sounds like it's coming down to the wire. We would very much like to stay in downtown but are unable to operate our business without access to our building through that lot and we would need to know the fate of that lot before we would commit to another 10 years. With construction and a potential building in that lot we would be forced to close our downtown location if that is developed. Aside from our regular, our restaurant operations we do make daily transfers of beer via pallets in the form of bottles and kegs and a transfer truck that would be too large to go into a parking structure. We need forklift access through our back door in order to unload that truck as well as other trucks. We have a spent grain farmer that comes and picks up spent grain and he needs access to the back door as well as access to our forklift. About once a month we have our grease trap pumped by a septic service that needs to happen in the back. We also receive bi-weekly deliveries of compressed gas, bulk, which happens through our roll-up door in the back. And soon we will need to replace some of our tanks and that construction will need to happen with cranes through the back door. So as you can see, I'm not as concerned about parking but I am concerned about access to our brewery through that parking lot. So I would ask that you would consider removing lot 10 from your recommendation to council because we really want to stay downtown and we would really hate to have to close our brewery and leave. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Natalie. Our next public comment will be from Bill. Bill, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Greetings. My name is Bill. My firm represents, I can see your timer, my firm represents the owners of three of the buildings that about parking lot 10, one of our business partners. There is Russian River Brewing. So you just heard from Natalie and many of her objections and concerns about loss of a parking lot, particularly for larger vehicles, deal with all of our business tenants in our three buildings that are about that. This presents real problem. Let me give you a little history of how that parking lot occurred. My clients are the descendants of the Rosenberg family. They found many decades ago that there was a parking problem downtown. Is that kind of a bit of a surprise for anybody? That parking problem was resolved by the Rosenbergs and other families. So gave up their fifth street size of their buildings and let them be demolished by the city to create a parking structure or parking a lot to facilitate parking for the betterment of all businesses downtown. So there's some history there. And I have to say that even if something like this were to go through, and I do agree, we need density downtown, I believe this lot is not the most opportune and cost effective lot to start with. You're gonna run into a lot of problems including loss of economic value to my clients, which they'll be seeking redress for. So I know the city needs to invest in lot 10. Doesn't need ADA or Clean Water Act situations right now, but it will be more problematic. You have other areas of opportunities such as already noted, the old White House lot which is bounded by second, third and E streets, that lots of area of opportunity. So we object to the use of lot 10 for this project and think it should be, you should limit it to other areas that are more easily developed before you look at something like this. Frankly, better development of that would include lot 10 would be the entire block. And that's a big subject for another day. Lastly, you have to really understand what's gonna be economically viable for downtown. And I'm talking to downtown businesses that develop the sales tax and the property taxes to support the city of Santa Rosa. It's gonna be the clients that can participate and spend money at the businesses in the downtown corridor. And that's moderate, mid and high level incomes. So we'd appreciate if you take lot 10 off your recommendation. And thank you very much. Thank you, Bill. At this time, I see no further hands raised. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. I'd like to call a roll call vote. Okay. At this point, we'll take a roll call vote on the motion. We'll start with Commissioner Rawhouser. I'm just, I'm not quite clear on our vote. Are we, I'm very much in agreement with our last gentleman talked about the community, what they sacrificed to create the lot 10. And so I don't know, are we voting on, you know, building on lot 10 or not? The motion was for all three of those city owned lots. So I'd have to say no, because I'm in agreement with the argument regarding lot 10. Okay. We will move on to Commissioner McWhorter. I have to vote nay too. No. Commissioner LaPenna? No. Commissioner Downey? No. Commissioner Burke? Commissioner Burke, you're on mute. Commissioner Burke, you're still muted. I'm able to use my space bar to unmute for some reason. It wasn't working that time. So I was hoping we'd have some discussion before we voted, but the, one of the questions I have is, when does this go or has it been to the planning commission already? It has not been to the planning commission yet and it is scheduled. I believe it's going to be on the 28th. Okay. You covered Jill when you talked about the proposals that there's going to be some really difficult obstacles to develop these sites. And we heard some specifics about the difficulty. And I don't think it applies to just this one lot. I think it applies to at least two of the three, probably all three. I don't think the housing authority is in a position to, I don't know, I don't know anybody is in a position to make a determination about whether or not it's viable to protect the existing businesses in a way that's appropriate and still have development until there's more specifics. But I think that the planning commission would be much more well-versed and the potential for these sites than is the housing authority. So I guess we're getting, I guess the question was, what's my vote? I would vote aye, really deferring those questions to the planning commission and others that are more better informed about the potential for developing those properties. Vice chair, Ellen. No. And chair test. No. That motion fails with one aye and six noes. Thank you. We'll now move on to item 13.2. Item 13.2, I'm sorry, hold on, I'm about to sneeze. Megan, you're still muted. Sorry. Item 13.2 is a request for extension of housing authority loan and regulatory agreement terms for North Point Apartments phases one and two located at 2121 Stony Point Road and subordination of housing authority loans to refinance senior mortgages. Angela Morgan, program specialist is presenting. Thank you, Megan. Good afternoon. The item before you today is the request for an extension for the housing authority loans and regulatory agreements for the North Point Apartments, as Megan mentioned. Next slide, please. Bridge housing corporation request, housing authority loan and regulatory agreement extensions and subordination and loan subordination. Bridge housing is refinancing the senior loans for the project with UMQA Bank to obtain a new 10-year term through December 31st, 2031. Next slide, please. Here's a summary of the existing housing authority loans and regulatory agreement terms for the project. North Point Apartments phase one has loans totaling 2.4 million, which are due by August, 2029. And a regulatory agreement with an end term of October 20th, 2029. Fit the phase two, North Point Apartments phase two has loans totaling 821,221, which are due by December, 2029, as well as September, 2030. And a regulatory agreement end term date of September 22nd, 2030. The request before you today will extend all of the housing authority loans and regulatory agreement terms to December 31st, 2031. Next slide, please. It is proposed to subordinate housing authority loans to refinanced senior mortgages. Needed subordination agreements and amendments to the housing authority loans and regulatory agreements shall be in the executive director or signage approval authority. Next slide, please. This slide is to demonstrate the significant savings the project could realize with the lower interest rates on the senior loans. North Point Apartments phase one has a current interest rate of 8.41% and a proposed interest rate of 3.80%. And phase two has a current interest rate of 8.38% and a proposed interest rate of 3.80%. Furthermore, the project debt coverage ratios post refinance should be 1.27 for phase one and 1.25 for phase two, by which are acceptable within our underwriting standards. Next slide, please. Bridge housing proposes to access cash from the project for the rehabilitation and improvement of immediate physical needs. Fund the project replacement reserve accounts and pay for reasonable fees associated with the refinance. The rehabilitation work for the project is primarily exterior work such as balconies, decking, waterproofing, stucco painting asphalt, walkways, lighting and landscape work caused by tree roots. Next slide, please. It is recommended by the housing and community services department that the housing authority by resolution approve a request for extension of loan and regulatory agreement terms for North Point Apartments phases one and two located at 2121, Stony Point Road as follows. One, extend North Point Phase one loans due, excuse me, dates from August, 2029 to December 31st, 2031 and extend the regulatory agreement from October, 2029 to December 31st, 2031. And two, extend North Point Phase two loan due dates to December, 2029 and September, 2030 to December, 31st, 2031. And three, authorize subordination of the housing authority loans to refinance senior mortgages. Next slide, please. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. Thank you, Angela. Vice Chair Owen. Thank you. It's good to see that their interest rate on the senior debt will drop substantially so that their debt coverage ratio becomes acceptable. Are there replacement reserves right now that they are required to keep either with their senior lender or with the regulatory agreement? And they will be using those replacement reserves for this improvement work. Thank you for your question. That's a good question. Yes, so the project was initially, unfortunately, initially the project was set up with a very low annual contribution to their replacement reserve accounts. So therefore, it really is, it appears to be insufficient for now that the project is 22 years old. It has insufficient funds to cover all of those necessary improvements. So therefore, a part of the refinance is to fund the replacement reserve. So for phase one, it will fund just over a million dollars and for phase two, it will fund the replacement reserves of about $790,000. As the refinance, are they pulling cash out to be able to do that so their debt will be increasing at the senior debt level with UMQUA? That is correct. They are accessing liquidity in cash to find the improvements of the replacement reserve and then pay for the, for any fees associated with the refinance. Are the existing loans that the authority has, are they residual receipt loans? Yes, they are. And has the authority received any payments on those? Megan, I don't recall of hand, you may. I do believe, I was going to try and look that up really quickly. I do believe they do make payments on the residual reserves on an annual basis. But if you want to get to the next question, I can circle back in just a couple of minutes. Well, just as a follow up, if they're, if the, and very understandably that on a 22 year old project, it was probably thin cash flow to begin with, they've got much better values in cash flow now, 22 years later, and there's work that has to be done. So they're drawing cash out from the senior lender to be able to do that work. But that also improves the debt coverage ratio to the extent there should be cash flow to be able to pay the residual receipt loans to the city. Will there be any requirements with these extensions that would be able to recoup our debt with the authority through the residual receipt structure of the loans? So I just looked up payments we received in 2020 and the two projects together paid a little over 34,000 towards their loans. And those are generally applied to the accrued interest first. So the structure of the note will not change with the refinancing and subordination. We are simply extending the term or the due date of both the loan and the regulatory agreement. So as long as the project continues to cash flow, we and the first mortgage does not take up more of that cash flow. We should anticipate receiving continued residual cash receipt payments. Has that been factored any projections the authority has done for loan repayments? We, I think we've touched on this in years past. We don't have real firm projections that we have on an annual basis for the project cash flow because it does vary so much year to year with the portfolio projects that we have that pay residual cash receipts. But it's generally towards year seven plus of a project that we start to see those payments coming in. And the projects, both phase one and phase two are both 100% affordable, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Allyn. Commissioner Burke. Am I muted? Yes, I am. So I remember this development well. It was hard fought because it was too dense and it would affect the adjacent businesses in a way that didn't make them happy at all. So they were very much opposed to it. I think it's a very well designed and developed. I think it's also been well maintained. But after 22 years work doesn't need to be done. This particular applicant had applied for funds. It's been a while now. It was a different commissioner who's no, Helga Lemke who was no longer on the board and I, and I remember making a site visit and seeing the need for improvements and asking questions about some of the problems had to do with some initial building flaws but it was, they concluded it was beyond the period of time where they could go back and expect the builder to remedy those problems. They didn't get the funding that they were requested mainly because there was another development who was in Apple Valley, Papago area as I recall that received the funds that were available at the time and there wasn't enough to do both projects. At the time, I remember we asked Bridge to look for other ways to take care of the improvements other than to having to rely on our funds which were for projects that were of a higher priority at the time. And so I see this as kind of an answer to that. And keeping developments in good condition, having the life extended is really a very high priority, I think for the housing authority has been for a long time it should continue. And the whole idea of keeping our loans in place to help ensure the continued affordability has also been an objective. So to me, this approach has merit and I would certainly support it. Thank you. I too had similar questions that have already been asked that I think this is a good use of the developer's funds and it's always good in my opinion to see projects that need a little help. And with the fact that interest rates are so low now it's a perfect time to do this. Meanwhile, I have another hand raised by Commissioner Downey. Hi Angela, my question was was the updates outlined would that complete restorations of these particular properties or do you anticipate more funding needed in the foreseeable future to address other issues pertaining to these particular properties? So the item before you today is really just to address the immediate needs. There are other needs that were identified in the physical needs assessment that was performed by a third party for bridge housing and it did address some longer term needs such as roofing as I recall was a more long-term issue but so the immediate refi and the dollars for the current improvements is really for the immediate needs. So there will be more items that they'll need to address which by that point it'll be for a few years from now and they should have a healthier replacement reserve account to help cover some of those costs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Angela. Thank you, you're welcome. Any other questions from Commissioner seeing none? I'm going to open this up to public comment on item 13.2. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You have three minutes. Chair tested this time I'm seeing no hands raised. Thank you. At this point, I will call to see if there is a motion on this slide. I will make a motion for the resolution of the housing authority. The city center was a proven extension of the housing authority loan and regulatory agreement terms for North Point Apartments phases one and two, two one, two one, Stony Point Road and subordination of the housing authorities loans to refinance senior mortgages and waive the reading of the text. I would second that. Thank you. Can we do a roll call vote? Okay, at this point, we will do a roll call vote on the motion. We'll start with Commissioner Rawhouser. Aye. Then Commissioner McWhorter. Aye. Commissioner LePenna. Aye. Commissioner Downey. Commissioner Burke. Aye. Vice Chair Owen. Aye. And Chair Test. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. Thank you. Item 14 is the adjournment of this meeting. Thank you, everyone. Good meeting, good comments. Thank you to the public as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.