Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-11; Housing Commission; MinutesMinutes of: HOUSING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: January 11, 2007 Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Scarpelli called the Meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Scarpelli asked Chairperson Smith to lead in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Sondra Boddy Dons Ritchie Edward Scarpelli Bobbie Smith Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of March 9, 2006, were approved with fixing two typographical errors on Page 8 and page 15. VOTE: 4-0 AYES: Boddy, Ritchie, Scarpelli, and Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: 0 NEW BUSINESS Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, presented the item for approval of financial assistance related to a 78 unit affordable housing development. This is phase 1 of the Robertson Ranch which is now being called die Windmill. Robertson Ranch has been divided into two villages, the East Village and the West Village. At a later date, another project will be coming forward. I will ask Brian Mihch with McMilllan if he would come up and give an overview of the project itself before I go into the financial assistance request so you have an understanding of what the project is and what you would be approving assistance for. Brian Milich is with the Corky McMillan Companies which also built the Calavera Hills Project. In that project there was an affordable project known as the Mariposa Apartments, 106 apartments. We did that project with Chelsea Investment Company and we are proposing to do this project, Meadowlark, 78 units, with Chelsea Investment Company as well. It will be our fourth project working with Chelsea and we found them to be both highly efficient in terms of building the project and also in obtaining die necessary financing. As we did at the Mariposa Project in Calavera Hills, it is likely that McMillan Companies will also be the general contractor to Chelsea Investment Corporation to actually build the apartments. We do that because it helps us control more of our destiny since our market rate units are tied to the construction of the apartments. It is a way of us remaining involved in the project. As you may know, the master plan for the Robertson Ranch Project was approved, and Josh Gates with our company has put together a short power point with the master plan approved in November by the City Council. It is broken into two Villages; the East Village, which McMillan Companies and our partner, Brookfield Homes, is the owner of; and the West Village, which remains under die ownership of the Robertson family. Because the'timing of the two villages are different, we will be building our affordable housing project on planning area 15 and the Robertson's will be building their affordable housing project on either planning area 7 and/or planning area 8. The total number HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2007 PAGE 2 of 9 of units, 1,122 units in Robertson Ranch, will generate a requirement for 168 affordable units of which 78 will be built by McMillan on our portion of the property, and the balance will be built on the West Village at the time the Robertson family either develops the West Village or someone else will develop the project. Chairperson Scarpelli asked Mr. Milich to point out where the East Village is. Mr. Milich said planning area 15 is on the East Village and that is where we will be building this 78 units that is before you tonight. The Robertson's will be building their affordable units in either planning area 7 or 8, which is right next to the commercial center. Robertson Ranch will consist of two villages, and there will be 1,122 units. This assumes the school district builds an elementary school on Robertson Ranch. If they don't, then the number of units in Robertson Ranch goes up to 1,154 units. Our 78 units is designed to accommodate those additional units. We are actually over building the units. It will also include a community park of 13.5 acres. The city is planning to build three ball fields on that park so it will be an active park. There will also be a commercial center of 8 acres and community facilities of 5 acres, which may be a church, daycare or other similar uses. So it is a full master planned community. In addition, just fewer than 50% of the project will be devoted to open space; trails, the park, other active recreational facilities, but a substantial part of the project will also be left as open space. Chairperson Scarpelli asked Mr Milich to point out the commercial areas. Mr. Milich said it is the blue area. That is where both the 8 acres of commercial, which would be a shopping center of some type, as well as 5 acres of community facility type uses. Both affordable housing will be easily accessible to the commercial center as well as Cannon Road and public transportation. In addition, our affordable housing project will be easily accessible to Cannon Road; there will be a bus line on Cannon Road. It will be accessible to the community park and also the elementary school site. There will be trails that will connect the East and West Villages so people can walk to the commercial center. One of the things the Planning Department wanted to ensure was that it was a walkable community and that it had access to public transportation. That is the reason for the location of our affordable housing project. Chairperson Scarpelli asked if Cannon Road was on the site. Mr. Milich said it bisects, it runs on the easterly side. It actually exists today It is in a two-lane configuration. We will be adding two more lanes with the construction of this project. We will be completing College Blvd and Cannon Road with the development of Robertson Ranch. Again, there will be public transportation; bus routes, bus stops along Cannon Road. They will be immediately accessible to the affordable housing project. The floor plans range from 650 square feet to 1,040 square feet. They are one, two and three-bedrooms. I will let Wally Dieckmann, from Chelsea, go into more detail on the financing and exactly what they are proposing. There will be three separate buildings; 78 units, 17 one-bedroom, 29 two-bedroom, and 32 three-bedroom units. There are a 142 parking spaces, two recreational facilities, and these units will also have access to the common recreation facility. In addition to a recreational facility in the center of the project and a separate tot lot, the project will also have accessibility to the common recreational facility which will be available to all the homeowners in the project. We will be working with the Department of Real Estate to determine how the apartment project can, in fact, have access to that and if there will be any charges associated with that. We think if there are charges, it will be minimal. Chairperson Scarpelli commented that he read in the report there wasn't going to be a fee. Wally Dieckmann with Chelsea Investment Corporation said this is our third affordable housing project in Carlsbad. We developed the Manposa Project, 106 units, in Calavera Hills, as Brian mentioned, for McMillan, and we currently have under construction on Rancho Santa Fe Road 168 units just south of San Ellijo on the very eastern border of Carlsbad. We are doing that project with Morrow Development Company, the developers of La Costa. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2007 PAGE 3 of 9 The financing we proposed for this project is a similar financing model that we used for the two previous projects. The key component of that financing is a multifamily housing program loan from the State of California. This is a program that started about four or five years ago, which is funded under proposition 46 and has been refunded under proposition 1C that just passed this past election in November 2006. It is a competitive financing. We have to compete against other projects in California, and we have a fairly decent track record of acquiring this financing, particularly for a project as attractive as this one. The reason we go after that financing is because it is very reasonably priced. It is a 3% interest rate for a period of 55 years, and it allows us to offer rents as low as 35% of AMI. One third of the units in this project will be at 35% of AMI and the balance will be at roughly half at 50% AMI and the balance at 55% AMI. This is a very nice rent mix, and we can service tenants of a broad range of incomes that way We will also be adding a bond allocation from the state for construction financing as well as a permanent loan. We will also have 4% low income housing tax credits and a loan from the City of Carlsbad Robert Harrington, the head of our management company is here, if you have any questions about the management aspects of our project. Based on Manposa, he has done analysis on the types of people we are serving, what kind of jobs they have in the community, and Robert is prepared to present that information if you are interested. Board Member Boddy asked Mr. Dieckmann, how does this project compare in terms of size to the other projects that you have done, as far as the number of units? Mr. Dieckmann answered as a company, we have done projects as small as 26 units and as large as 440 units. All those projects were here in San Diego County. Of the projects we have done in Carlsbad, we have done the Mariposa Project, 106 units, and then the Hunter's Pointe Project, 146 units. This would be the smallest of the three we have done in Carlsbad. Chairperson Scarpelli said the report says it shows 168. Did that get reduced to 146? Mr. Dieckmann said no it is 168. Board Member Boddy said there was some comment earlier that the 78 units in this project is actually over the requirement. I would like to understand the basis for that. Mr. Dieckmann said that was a decision that the McMillan Companies made, but I think I can answer that. The 78 units are keyed off of the total number of units to be built assuming the school does not build the elementary school and therefore, the number of units built out in the project is higher. It is a contingency they may need the 78 units. If the school is built, then they won't need that many, they will only need 70 units. Chairperson Scarpelli added that one of the first projects, originally called Villa Loma, was far in excess of the number of units the master developer was required to make available, and I think we still have some of those units still available. Ms. Fountain said the inclusionary housing ordinance requires that 15% of the total number of housing units in a project have to be affordable to low income. That is what Brian was sharing with you, that the two villages are separated in terms of development; McMillan is developing the East Village portion. Their total requirement would be 78, if all their properties develop according to what the Council would allow them to do What the Council approved for them to do if the school is developed, then they will have fewer residential units so they would only have to do 70 units. I think the total number of affordable m Robertson Ranch was 224. They are going to do some low income and some moderate income, 56 affordable to moderate. Board Member Boddy asked are we depending on the Robertson family to develop the remaining 90 units'' Ms. Fountain said they will have to do their share on their property, correct, when they come forward. I think McMillan is ahead of the Robertson Family in development so they will do that separately. They will have their own affordable housing agreement and all of their own requirements. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2007 PAGE 4 of 9 Chairperson Scarpelli said then that would be in the PC7 area that is set aside for that purpose. The sale of the credits of the units is something we have been doing almost since the outset of this Commission. Is it four or less to meet the 15% requirement? I know we have some kind of a formula that we use. Ms. Fountain said if you are six units or less, you don't have to produce a unit on site. You pay an in-lieu fee. If you are 7 units or more, you are going to have to build a unit. Typically when we are working with developers, we will say if your requirement is 10 units or less, we typically let you buy into another project or build second dwelling units or something like that. If your requirement is larger than that, we will typically look at it a little bit closer to determine whether they should do it on site or not. With the affordable housing component, they do have the ability to change. Sometimes with these projects, the affordable housing project is way out in front of the market rate units coming through. That is smart for the master developer because then they don't get held up on release of building permits for their market units. Sometimes they predict what they think they are going to build and the affordable housing gets built and sometimes they might have extra units they don't need so we build in the opportunity for them to sell those to other developers within their quadrant of the City. For this one we won't know yet whether or not they will have extra credits to sell or not, but the minimum they would have to do is 70 units. Board Member Smith asked what is the maximum income for a single person for a one-bedroom? Ms. Fountain said it will depend on their household size and Mr. Dieckmann can probably explain. Their project will have different income levels based on the financing sources they are using. Hopefully, Mr. Dieckmann can give you that information. Mr. Dieckmann said he doesn't have that information with him. He said he can tell you what the rents are but not the information Board Member Smith was asking for. Ms. Fountain said we can get that information. It depends on household size and what regulations they are working off of for their income levels. From a financial standpoint, you received information on the project itself but you don't actually review projects for permits, so that was basically for information purposes. But you do look at their financial assistance request, which is why they are before you tonight. We have provided you a report that outlines what the financial situation is for this project. One of the things I did want to share is though, when we are doing these proforma for these projects, they do get adjusted as we move along in the process. Once we determine what our financial contribution to a project is, it gets set at that point. Just so you are understanding, sometimes those numbers do get adjusted, like how much is coming from one fund or another, what they actually qualify for, and what they compete for in terms of financing. Sometimes those numbers may change, but what we are looking at as our number is set tonight with your recommendation on what we are able to provide. Based on the proforma you have in your packet, the total cost of this project is estimated at $25.5 million. That does include the land cost, but the land is donated by the master developer so that cost is included in your proforma, but that is one of the contributions of the master developer as well as cash assistance to the project. In this particular case for this project, your average per unit cost is $327,153. One of the documents that I gave you as an exhibit is a comparison to other affordable housing projects in Carlsbad that have received financial assistance so you can see how the cost of producing affordable housing has increased over the years. When we started out with Villa Loma, which was our very first project, you were looking at a total per unit cost of about $90,000. Now we are up to over $300,000. That is with the cost of construction going up, land cost that may go up, and for a number of reasons project costs will be higher including if they have to pay prevailing wage. This particular project will have to pay prevailing wage because of the financing sources they are bringing into the project. So all of those work together to start increasing your per unit cost. Also, the greater affordability of the development reduces some of the income that would be coming in so that is going to increase your cost As Mr. Dieckmann mentioned, the rents range from 35% of AMI to 55%, and sometimes those numbers do change. It is still in that very low to low income category so this is a much more affordable project than what is required by the mclusionary ordinance which says they have to HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11,2007 PAGE 5 of 9 set them at 70% of AMI. Some of that is directly related to the financing sources they are looking at to fund this project. We always take a look at the developer fee to see what the developer fee is for every project because we want to make sure if we are putting money into it, there isn't any undue profit that we would rather capture. As we noted m the report, the developer fee that is proposed is $2.5 million, which is approximately 10% of the total project cost including the land, and we have determined in the past that 10% is a reasonable developer fee. The developer is proposing to defer 20% of that and that could get adjusted depending on how these financing sources work out. The important point is they are deferring some of that and are not going to get the entire amount at construction. When we look at this fee, we want to determine, is it reasonable and we have determined it is reasonable. It is also the maximum that is permitted per the tax credit regulations. As Mr. Dieckmann mentioned earlier, the project is going to be financed with multifamily housing state funding, a permanent loan, tax credits, developer equity and the city assistance. Specifically what they are asking for from the city is $1,014,000 which equates to $13,000 per unit. If you go back to the charts in the packet that show the comparison, you can see it is a little bit higher then some that we have done and a little bit lower, but for the most part it is a little bit more then we have done in the past. It does seem reasonable when you consider how the costs of construction have been increasing. At some point, we need to bump up the amount of money we are giving to the developer to help them out with the project There is a chart that summarizes the uses and sources of funding. We have been keeping this ever since we did Villa Loma so we can keep looking at those and see what the costs are and how they compare against each other in the different areas. It is not a full proof system because all the projects are a little different so they are going to require different services based on the uniqueness of their project. It is hard to completely compare apples to apples, but we try to give some general feel if they are all in the same ballpark, which we felt this project is. As we do all of our assistance, the city cash assistance will be provided in the form of a residual receipts loan. It is secured by a note and a deed of trust. The loan begins accruing at the completion of construction of the improvements. The outstanding principal and accrued interest on the city loan is amortized over a 55 year period, and it is repaid from cash surplus. That is money left over after they have paid all their expenses, paid off their other types of loans, because we are always going to be taking a subordinate position to their permanent loan. Chairperson Scarpelli suggested that we review that proforma He had a question as to where there was a break even point. On the October date, it is referring to a cash flow after debt service of $24,000. Would that be the residual that would be used to pay back the city loan? Mr. Dieckmann said yes this would be after debt service. Chairperson Scarpelli commented then that is available for other expenses. Mr. Dieckmann said that would be residual cash flow. There are two recipients of the residual cash flow; one is the city loan and the other one is the MHP loan, which is the state. Ms. Fountain said we share a portion of it. Chairperson Scarpelli said you are showing it at full occupancy. Mr Dieckmann said that would be after the deferred developer fee that is paid. The deferred developer fee is 20%; $500,000 is paid out of this. Chairperson Scarpelli asked if that would also be prior to the city and the state? Mr. Dieckmann said yes. HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2007 PAGE 6 of 9 Ms. Fountain said the state and the city are in similar positions as to what is remaining. Then we split that and then there is a percentage basis that it is split on. We worked that out with the state on the last project. Ms. Fountain continued, the next step is if the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, which is the City Council, acts on this, then we would move forward and do all of the regulatory documents and the loan documents. We actually have attorneys that are working on that right now. Staff is recommending that the Housing Commission make a recommendation to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, which is the City Council, to approve the loan request. We are actually, in this case, recommending the funding source be the Redevelopment Agency's Housing set-aside monies The reason we are recommending that is we have over $2,000,000 in that fund that we need to spend before we get penalized for not spending it. We are eager to get that money spent. It doesn't change anything in terms of conditions. It is just the funding source that we use. The interesting thing about redevelopment agency housing money is it can actually be used anywhere in the city. You don't have to use it just in your redevelopment areas. You have to make certain findings of benefit to the redevelopment area, but generally there has already been a finding that housing benefits redevelopment areas. So we are recommending that all the money come from that housing fund. We actually have more then $2,000,000 in that fund, but $2,000,000 is about what we need to spend so we don't get penalized. We will be looking at other projects to spend the rest of it that we are not spending on this project We do have some of those already in the works. Board Member Boddy asked if the project has to be in a redevelopment area? Ms. Fountain answered no, it can actually be anywhere within the boundaries of the city limits. You just have to make findings of benefit to your redevelopment area, and generally the state has already recognized that if you are building housing and you are building affordable housing, there is a benefit to your redevelopment area. It is almost an automatic finding of benefit. We always look at our risks that are involved whenever we provide funding to any organization, and since we are providing funding for a construction project, you have your typical risks that are involved in that You have a predevelopment risk; our money goes in early into a project so there could be concern that maybe the project doesn't end up getting funded for whatever reason, but in this particular case, we aren't providing predevelopment loan money. We are actually providing money that would ultimately help with construction so that is not as much of a risk. Your construction risk is that your project doesn't get completed, it has funding problems, or whatever, but with all of our affordable housing projects, we have low risk because we keep the master developer involved in the project and they can't get their building permits for market units until their affordable housing moves forward. So we typically haven't had too much risk in that area. Some risk is at operation, but all of those are mitigated if you have a strong development team, you have reasonable terms of your loan, and you have some proven history of a contractor as McMillan stated they most likely will be involved as the contractor for this and they have a lot of experience. The monitoring of costs goes on between the city and the developer. In this particular case, you have not only Chelsea watching those, but you will also have McMillan watching those. Those are all mitigating factors. Also when we provide money, it helps the developer, Chelsea, to get other financing that has more reasonable terms. So you start mitigating your risk that somehow your money will get lost, but it is something we take a look at to make sure we are comfortable with that risk we are taking. The considerations of the Housing Commission that you should be looking at are: Does the proposal before you affectively serve this City's needs and priorities in terms of housing7 Is the proposal consistent with our affordable housing policies and ordinances? Does this proposal appear feasible to you7 Are you comfortable with the capacity of the developer to carry out this project? When staff is looking at the request, we look to make sure it meets our three key underwriting goals. We look at the developer, is it a strong, experienced borrower that is asking for your money? We have determined that Chelsea is. We also look at the project costs and if they are reasonable, based on the size and requirements. We have gone over that, and we felt they are reasonable. Is there an acceptable level of leveraging, which means, are they getting other money other then just the city's money, and are they bringing what you think is acceptable leverage in terms of the HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2007 PAGE 7 of 9 ratio of your money to their money? Since the majority of their money is coming from other places and we are only a small component of that, staff would say that they are more than adequately leveraging our money. With the considerations of the Housing Commission and of the City staffs review, we believe you do have a project of high quality design. You have seen the renderings before you tonight. They did an exceptional job with a nice design on their project and site layout. The project obviously meets our affordabihty needs in that it is meeting the inclusionary housing ordinance and it is going even further than that and hitting some of those very low and extremely low income households, which is a big need within our community. The Affordable Housing Policy Team, which is made up of staff members, reviews this and then makes a recommendation to you. As a reminder, the staff team includes myself, the Community Development Director, Sandy Holder, the Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi, the Finance Director, Lisa Irvine, the Planning Director, which right now in acting capacity is Don Neu, and the Economic Development and Property Management Manger, Cynthia Haas. We all look at these proformas and ask questions, and then we make a recommendation to you which is to approve the request for the $1,014,000 for this Meadowlark affordable apartment development. As I mentioned, our next step if the Housing Commission does make a recommendation, we would finish working on all of the loan documents, and the item would be scheduled for City Council approval. They will be moving quickly into an application process with the state for MHP money. That application is due April 3rd so they have to get their site development plan, their site development approval, as well as our commitment of financial assistance before they make that application. So they are moving forward to get their site development plan approved, which is the project they reviewed for you tonight. It will go to Planning Commission and then it will have to go to City Council So they have a tight time frame they are working on. I did want Robert to share with you the information he compiled on the types of people that are living in Mariposa in terms of professions. It is interesting to hear about it, even though we don't have anybody objecting to it tonight Robert Harrington, with Chelsea Investments Management Division, said today they took a look at some of the tenant files at Mariposa and found some interesting facts. There are three different varying income levels there. In the property we have 60%, 30% and 20% income level. The big gap between 30% and 60% means anyone above 30%, they could be at a 45% level or a 36% level, and they could be living in a 60% unit. They just have to pay more even though they do not make as much. In the 60% level, we have emergency medical technicians, two pediatnc nurses, two special needs teachers that teach in the City of Carlsbad, a former police officer, three medical assistants, home health aids, two bank tellers that work in the City of Carlsbad, two medical group coordinators, office supervisors, and customer service assistance mangers of telecom companies. In the 30% level we have two courtesy patrol officers that work at Carlsbad mall, customer service people that work at Costco, waitresses, and customer service people that work at retail stores. At the 20% level you usually have people who are on SSI. We have three people there who are disabled, that is their main source of income, disability, and all three of them volunteer. One volunteers with the deaf, one volunteers with the bum association, and one volunteers with wheelchair bound people That is the type of tenant we have at Mariposa. Currently, we have a 300 person wait list. Board Member Smith said she is impressed they screen their tenants. Mr. Harrington said every tenant in every unit that is over 18 years of age, even if it is an adult child, gets screened for both credit and criminal background. Board Member Smith asked when this project will begin. Mr. Milich answered they are anticipating starting the grading of the East Village in March. We think we will have all the approvals and be ready to begin construction sometime toward the end of this year and have the project built within a 9 to 10 month period, sometime in the middle to third quarter of 2008. As Ms. Fountain said, our goal is to start it as soon as possible and to go right through the project so that way we have no restrictions on our market rate HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2007 PAGE 8 of 9 units. We can just build those as the market dictates. The first project you will see at Robertson Ranch will probably be this affordable apartment project. Board Member Ritchie asked if the Board could have an idea on where we stand on our 5-year plan? Ms. Fountain asked if she is talking about the construction of units? Board Member Ritchie said, yes, the construction of units. Ms. Fountain said one of the items in the packet is the affordable housing accomplishments. It is the very last exhibit. Because we are working on the Housing Element, which actually will be coming fairly soon to the Housing Commission, we wanted to get a good summary of where we are at on producing affordable housing. This chart divides the affordable housing up by periods of time in terms of the housing element If you look about three quarters down the page and it says 1993 to 2006, that shows you we have a total of about 1,747 units that have been produced so far. You can look by category as to how many of those were produced from 1993 to 1999, 1999 to 2004, and then what was produced in 2005 To date we have 1,747 units. At the very bottom we divided those up into product types so you can see a majority of them are being provided in terms of apartments. We do have some that have been in condominiums and town homes and some in second dwelling units, which is what SDU stands for. I also gave you an indication of how they are divided up by quadrant, because a lot of times we get asked about who is providing more than their fair share in their quadrant. As you can see, as market rate gets develops, the affordable is getting developed, so whichever quadrant at the time is going gang busters on building market rate, that is the one you are going to see the affordable housing coming into. The ones that are pending are what is under construction now or will be under construction soon. Board Member Ritchie asked if these units we were talking about tonight are included in that. Ms. Fountain said they are not in the 1,747 that we have in the chart, but when you look at the bottom two boxes where we said "with future" underneath, that does include those that are pending and in the planning process. What we have on the ground now as of December 2005, which was when these numbers were completed, is 1,747 units. Chairperson Scarpelli congratulated staff on working on an excellent housing project. In particular, I would like to address the fact that in this particular project and why I can support it whole heartedly is that we have done a good job of dealing with the low income households, those within the 30 to 55 AMI. That is something we have been struggling with because those are the hardest ones to produce. We thank you and congratulate you for accomplishing that monumental task. The project is a beautiful project. It is certainly going to be an enhancement to the City of Carlsbad and it appears as though you have taken everything into consideration regarding the future tenants, with providing them with beautiful units and the recreation areas. I also want to congratulate the management companies that have been managing not only your project, but those of the other 1,747 units that Ms. Fountain just mentioned. I have served on this Commission for many, many years One of the concerns has always been whether or not this was going to be an attribute to a community or something that the community would wish they had never said yes to. I think due to the excellent management and planning that has gone on, we could look at every project we have done in affordable housing within the city as being an excellent example of how things can be done and done right. I also appreciate the fact that we are constantly reminded that when talking about affordable housing, we are talking about the professionals and those folks you just described that are currently tenants at Manposa. I think here in the City of Carlsbad we can be proud in everything that has been done so far in the way of affordable housing. Again, congratulations to the developers for working so cooperatively with the city and congratulations to the staff to make sure it happens the way it should Chairperson Scarpelli called for a motion to approve the Meadowlark apartments. Board Member Smith made a motion that we approve the Housing Commission recommendation of approval to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and City Council of $1,014,000 in financial cash assistance from the HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2007 PAGE 9 of 9 Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency Housing set aside funds to Chelsea Investment Corporation for construction of 78 affordable apartment units in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad on property located on Cannon Road and within Planning Area of 15 of the Robertson Ranch development. Board Member Ritchie seconded the motion. VOTE: 4-0 AYES: Boddy, Ritchie, Scarpelh, and Smith NOES: None ABSTAIN: ' None DIRECTOR'S REPORT The Director has no report to make. There will be a Development Standards Workshop for the Village area on January 25, 2007, so if you are interested in what is going on in the village, you are definitely invited to attend one of the workshops. We will probably be bringing the Housing Element within the next couple of months. We are still working out some final details on it. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT The Chairperson has no report to make. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting of January 11, 2007, was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Fountain Housing and Redevelopment Director PATRICIA CRESCENTI Minutes Clerk - MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.