SR 05-10-2022 3E
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 10, 2022
Agenda Item: 3.E
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director, Community Services Department, Housing and Human
Services
Subject: Approval of Barnard Park Villas Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and implementing
documents based on the attached Term Sheet (Attachment A) with regard to the
Barnard Park Villas senior affordable housing development.
Summary
Barnard Park Villas is a 61-apartment community restricted to low-income senior-citizen
households (Project) and located at 3356 Barnard Way (Property). The Property is
currently owned by Barnard Villas, Ltd. (Owner). The City has the option to purchase
the Property, including the improvements, for $1.00 on December 1, 2026, though the
existing housing subsidies for the Property expire on June 1, 2023.
In light of upcoming milestones, the Owner has partnered with Thomas Safran and
Associates, Inc. (TSA), an affordable housing owner, developer, and operator.
The Owner and TSA are collectively referred to as the “Developer” in this report.
The Developer submitted a proposal to the City to retain and extend their ownership of
the Property in exchange for an upfront cash payment to the City and the commitment
to renovate the Property and maintain the Project as a low-income senior-citizen
apartment complex.
3.E
Packet Pg. 274
2 of 12
Through negotiations with staff, the Developer has formalized a proposal to the City that
includes the following key provisions:
City Provisions:
The City would receive a $13 million upfront payment to the Housing Trust Fund from
the transaction, primarily based on the value of the HUD voucher contract.
The City would ground lease the Property to the Developer for 60 years.
The City would receive annual ground-rent payments equal to $1.00 per year plus a
35% share of the Project’s surplus operating cash flow after the Developer’s annual
preferred return (residual receipts).
The affordability covenants would be extended for 60 years to run concurrently with the
ground lease term.
Developer Provisions:
The Developer would receive a $19 million upfront payment from the transaction,
primarily based on the value of the HUD voucher contract.
The Developer would apply for a new Section 8 project-based voucher contract with an
initial 20-year term plus renewal extensions.
The Developer would complete an initial renovation of the Property based on an
estimated rehabilitation budget of approximately $9 million.
The Developer would fund an initial $120,000 capital reserve and would be required to
maintain the Property per defined standards throughout the 60-year ground lease term.
The Developer would receive an annual $225,000 preferred return for 15 years.
3.E
Packet Pg. 275
3 of 12
The Developer would receive 65% of the Project’s residual receipts and the City would
receive 35% of the Project’s residual receipts, which would be calculated after the
Developer’s annual preferred return.
The Developer would provide enhanced social services to the tenants during the term of
the ground lease.
The Developer’s proposal would extend the affordability covenants at the Property for
an additional 60 years, as well as provide a renovated Property and on-going
maintenance of the Property for current and future tenants. In addition, the proposal
would extend the existing Section 8 project-based voucher contract for at least another
20 years, as well as provide enhanced social services to the tenants. Furthermore, the
Developer’s proposal does not require any financial assistance from the City, and
instead, offers the City both an upfront cash payment to the Housing Trust Fund as well
as participation in the Project’s surplus cash flow on an annual basis.
Background
In 1981, the City’s former redevelopment agency conveyed the Property to a
predecessor-in-interest of the Owner for the purposes of constructing a 61-apartment
community restricted to low-income senior-citizen households. The development of the
Project was financed with a loan from the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)
that was insured by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) (HUD Loan). In conjunction with the HUD Loan, the Owner entered into a
Section 8 project-based voucher (project-based voucher) contract with CalHFA/HUD to
ensure sufficient cash flow for the Project. Neither the City nor the Santa Monica
Housing Authority (SMHA) is a party to the existing project-based voucher contract.
The Project was built as planned and currently provides rent- and income-restricted
housing for 60 low-income senior-citizen households plus one manager. Each of the 60
affordable apartments in the Project was allocated a project-based voucher that allows
each tenant in the Project to pay no more than 30% of their income toward rent.
As project-based vouchers, the vouchers remain with the Property, rather than
3.E
Packet Pg. 276
4 of 12
particular tenants, until the termination of the existing project-based voucher contract.
As such, even if tenants vacate the Property, the project-based voucher remains with
the Property and available to the next tenant to move in.
The grant deed that conveyed the Property to the Owner gives the City the option to
purchase the Property, including the improvements, for $1.00 on December 1, 2026.
However, both the HUD Loan and the project-based voucher contract expire on
June 1, 2023, prior to the date of the City’s option to purchase the Property.
A key component of the Developer’s proposal is the renewal of the existing project-
based voucher contract through HUD’s “Mark-Up-To-Market” process. The Mark-Up-
To-Market renewal sets the Section 8 subsidy payments made to the Project (payment
standards) based on the market rents of other apartments located in the vicinity of the
Property. Given that the Property is in a superior, ocean-front location, the proposed
payment standards achieved through the Mark-Up-To-Market process are significantly
higher than the payment standards used by SMHA on a Citywide basis. Thus, the
Mark-Up-To-Market renewal of the existing project-based voucher contract is
significantly valuable and would provide the Project with a substantial amount of project-
based voucher subsidy revenue on an annual basis.
However, per discussions with HUD, the Owner has the ability to move the existing
project-based voucher contract to a different property, including properties outside
Santa Monica. If the project-based voucher contract is moved to another property or if
the project-based voucher contract is terminated, each current tenant would receive an
enhanced voucher (see HUD Notice PIH 2001-41 and H 2012-3). An enhanced
voucher is attached to the tenant, not the property, and only protects tenants from future
rent increases (tenant-based vouchers). Current tenants may use the tenant-based
voucher either at Barnard Park Villas or at another property if they relocate. While
tenant-based vouchers provide affordability protection for current tenants, the vouchers
are lost to the property once a tenant vacates. As such, as the tenant-based vouchers
are terminated by attrition, the Project’s operating cash flow would decrease.
3.E
Packet Pg. 277
5 of 12
Discussion
The Developer’s proposal presents an opportunity to extend the current project-based
voucher contract, extend the Project’s affordability covenants, rehabilitate the Property,
and provide a financial payment to the City’s Housing Trust Fund. The guiding
principles staff considered in preparing the recommended approach are:
1) preserve long-term affordability;
2) maintain affordable housing for current and future low-income seniors;
3) provide enhanced services to the tenants;
4) maintain and enhance the project-based voucher contract;
5) maintain financial feasibility of the property;
6) facilitate necessary rehabilitation and on-going maintenance; and
7) provide an upfront payment to the City’s Housing Trust Fund plus a share of
annual surplus operating cash flow.
The City is in a position to leverage its purchase option to negotiate a long-term ground
lease with the Developer through a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), in
exchange for not exercising the City option to purchase the Property in 2026. The DDA
would ensure affordability for current and future seniors, effectuate necessary
rehabilitation, and secure the financial viability of the project for the next 60 years.
An advantage of executing the DDA is that affordability, rehabilitation, and long-term
maintenance goals for the Project could be achieved without any negative impact on the
City budget or limited Housing Trust Funds. Execution of the DDA would result in a $13
million upfront cash payment to the City’s Housing Trust Fund in order to support the
City’s investment in the production and preservation of affordable housing as well as
implementation of the Housing Element.
To proceed with the proposal, staff seeks Council approval of the proposed deal
parameters, including authorization for the City Manager to finalize the DDA. Such
parameters are described in further detail below, summarized in Attachment A and
include:
1) upfront payment to the City’s Housing Trust Fund;
2) ground-lease term;
3.E
Packet Pg. 278
6 of 12
3) required rehabilitation and on-going maintenance;
4) required social services; and
5) use of net cash flow.
Developer Proposal Summary
The Developer desires to enter into a ground lease with the City for 60 more years to
retain ownership in exchange for the continued operation of the property as affordable
housing for seniors. The proposal would restrict 100% of the affordable apartments to
very low-income households (below 50% of area median income) as defined in
California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 50105 and would set the affordable
rents per H&SC Section 50053.
The Owner would extend the existing project-based voucher contract through HUD’s
Mark-Up-To-Market process. The project-based voucher contract would be extended
for an initial 20-year term, and the Developer would be required to apply for a renewal of
the contract as long as the Section 8 Program or a comparable rental assistance
program remains in place.
To complete the rehabilitation of the Project, the Developer would apply for the following
financing sources:
1) A new permanent loan from HUD that is insured by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA); and
2) 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (Tax Credits) that are competitively
awarded by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).
Upon securing the agreed-upon financing, the Developer would complete a substantial
rehabilitation of the Project. The direct rehabilitation budget, including a contingency
allowance, is estimated at approximately $9 million. The rehabilitation would consist of
any necessary structural, accessibility, and building system improvements. The final
scope of the rehabilitation and the rehabilitation budget would be subject to prior written
approval by the City.
3.E
Packet Pg. 279
7 of 12
The Developer’s proposal would provide a $13 million upfront payment to the City’s
Housing Trust Fund and a $19 million upfront payment to the Developer. The upfront
payments are based primarily on the value of the HUD voucher contract. In addition,
the Developer would receive a preferred return of no more than $225,000 annually for
the first 15 years of operations. However, if the net cash flow is less than $225,000 in
any of the first 15 years, the unrealized portion would not accrue to future years.
Otherwise, if annual net cash flow exceeds $225,000, the portion above that amount
would be shared between the City and the Developer. The City would receive 35% of
the net cash flow after the preferred return and the Developer would receive 65% of the
net cash flow after the preferred return.
Preserving Long-term Affordability for Seniors
Entering into a new 60-year ground lease would extend the affordability covenants for
60 years and require no City funding. At the end of the ground-lease term, the Property
would automatically revert to the City at no cost, and the City could elect to extend the
affordability covenants further at that time. The DDA would require that the 60
affordable apartments in the Project be restricted to very low-income senior-citizen
households. The applicable very low incomes and rents are as follows:
# of apartments
% of median income
maximum income
(1-person hhld)
2021 rent limit
(1-bdrm)
60 50 $41,400 $ 800
However, with an extension of the project-based voucher contract, each tenant would
be required to pay no more than 30% of their income towards rent. Thus, their actual
rent payments would likely be less than the maximum allowable rents outlined above.
Furthermore, the extension of the project-based voucher contract would ensure that
future tenants at the Property would receive a voucher and pay no more than 30% of
their income towards rent.
3.E
Packet Pg. 280
8 of 12
Enhanced Services for Tenants
In discussing the proposed transaction with the Developer, a key priority for staff has
been not only ensuring the long-term affordability of the residential property, but also
ensuring that senior residents are well cared for during the rehabilitation and during the
life of the project. If the transaction is approved, the Developer would be required to
implement a rehabilitation plan that is designed to minimize impacts on tenants during
the rehabilitation. If temporary relocation of any tenants is necessary during the
rehabilitation, the Developer would be required to find and pay for equivalent
accommodations, provide financial support for temporary relocation costs, and provide
personal support before, during, and after the temporary relocation. Fortunately, the
Developer has extensive experience and a strong track record of supporting tenants
during the rehabilitation process. In addition, the Developer has worked with staff to
develop a social services and resident services plan to help ensure that residents’
social, medical, and behavioral health needs can be addressed in a timely manner. The
terms of the DDA would require the Developer to provide the enhanced services for the
entirety of the 60-year ground lease term.
Maintain and Enhance Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Contract
A key component of the Developer’s proposal is the renewal of the existing project-
based voucher contract through HUD’s “Mark-Up-To-Market” process. The Mark-Up-
To-Market renewal sets the Section 8 subsidy payments made to the Project based on
the market rents at other apartments in the vicinity of the Property. Given that the
Property is in a superior, ocean-front location, the proposed payment standards
achieved through the Mark-Up-To-Market process ($2,761 per unit per month) are
significantly higher than the payment standards used by SMHA on a City-wide basis
($1,930 per 1-bdrm apartment per month). Thus, the Mark-Up-To-Market renewal of
the existing project-based voucher contract is significantly valuable and provides the
Project with a substantial amount of Section 8 project-based voucher subsidy revenue
on an annual basis.
Keyser Marston Associates (“KMA"), a real estate advisory firm with extensive
experience in affordable housing development and finance, has evaluated the overall
3.E
Packet Pg. 281
9 of 12
financial structure of the proposed transaction. In addition, KMA has evaluated the
City’s options if the proposed transaction does not proceed, as well as the Owner’s
options if the transaction does not proceed. KMA has determined that if the existing
HUD contract is transferred to another property, the value to the Owner of the HUD
contract could range from $10 million to $20 million.
Maintaining Financial Feasibility
The Developer’s proposal would extend the term of the existing project-based voucher
contract for at least another 20 years through HUD’s Mark-Up-To-Market process.
Through the HUD program, the project-based voucher contract is estimated to provide
the Project with approximately $1.44 million in annual operating subsidy in Year 1.
The annual subsidy amount would escalate each year thereafter based on the increase
in HUD-approved payment standards. Furthermore, the Developer would be required
to apply for a renewal of the contract as long as the Section 8 Program or a comparable
rental-assistance program remains in place.
In comparison, if the Project’s vouchers were to convert to tenant-based vouchers, the
voucher income would decrease over time due to attrition of the current tenants. In this
situation, it is likely that the Project’s operating expenses would exceed the Project’s
revenue in the future. Thus, the Project would require an annual operating subsidy to
remain operationally feasible. In such a scenario where the City or its designee were
the future owner, the City likely would be required to fund any future operational
shortfalls.
Facilitating Necessary Rehabilitation
Barnard Park Villas is a 40-year-old building and some of the building systems and
common areas need renovation. The Developer’s proposal would leverage a new HUD
Loan and 9% Tax Credit financing to complete approximately $9 million in direct
rehabilitation costs at the Property. The substantial rehabilitation is proposed to
incorporate preventative maintenance and upgrades to ensure the long-term viability
and habitability of the Property. In addition, in December 2021, the Developer held a
meeting with the current residents to discuss the proposed Project and to seek
3.E
Packet Pg. 282
10 of 12
feedback. After the Developer presented the proposed Project, residents identified
desired improvements to enhance the function and livability of the Property and
appeared to be supportive of the Project’s intent to preserve long-term affordability.
The Developer’s proposed scope of rehabilitation includes such items as new paint and
flooring in the common areas, upgrades to the community kitchen, new windows,
façade repairs, accessibility upgrades, as well as upgrades to all unit interiors (kitchens,
bathrooms, flooring, lighting, etc.). The scope of rehabilitation would be further refined
based on a Project Capital Needs Assessment to be prepared for the HUD Loan and
Tax Credit financing, as well as general contractor bids. The final scope of the
rehabilitation and the rehabilitation budget will be subject to prior written approval by the
City.
Provide an Upfront Payment to the City Plus a Share of Annual Surplus Cash Flow
The proposed transaction results in $32 million in sales proceeds that can be distributed
between the City and the Developer. The $32 million in sales proceeds is generated by
the anticipated 9% Tax Credit equity, as well as the HUD loan that will be secured
against the Property. The annual debt-service payments on the HUD loan are largely
financed with the subsidy income generated by the Mark-Up-To-Market project-based
vouchers. The Developer proposes to provide a $13 million upfront payment to the
City’s Housing Trust Fund. In return, the Developer proposes to retain $19 million of the
sales proceeds to compensate the Owner for maintaining the HUD contract at the
Property and seeking Mark-Up-to-Market vouchers. The Developer asserts that the
Owner will be liable for capital gains taxes and transaction costs in the amount of
approximately $7 million from the Owner’s share of proceeds.
The Developer would receive a preferred return of no more than $225,000 annually for
the first 15 years of operations. However, if the net cash flow is less than $225,000 in
any of the first 15 years, the unrealized portion would not accrue to future years.
Otherwise, if annual net cash flow exceeds $225,000, the portion of cash flow above
that amount would be shared between the City and the Developer. The City would
receive 35% of the net cash flow after the preferred return and the Developer would
3.E
Packet Pg. 283
11 of 12
receive 65% of the net cash flow after the preferred return. The City’s share of net cash
flow would be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund.
As noted previously, KMA estimates the value of the project-based voucher contract
between $10 million and $20 million. Thus, the project-based voucher contract is the
primary reason that the proposed transaction supports any upfront payment to the City,
generates significant annual operating revenue, and ensures the long-term operational
feasibility of the Project. Given that the project-based voucher contract is completely
controlled by the Owner, and can be moved to a different property, staff finds the
Developer’s proposed split of sales proceeds, preferred return requirement, and
residual receipts distribution to be fair and reasonable.
Alternatives
The primary alternative would be for the City to exercise its option to purchase
the property. The existing grant deed provides the City with an option to purchase the
property in 2026 by paying one dollar ($1) to the Owner. However, if the Developer’s
proposal is rejected, the Owner would likely move the project-based voucher contract to
a different property by the time the City can exercise its option in 2026. At that point,
each of the current tenants would have received a tenant-based voucher.
Were the City to exercise its option, the City would likely select an affordable housing
organization to operate the Property. The City, through its designated housing provider,
would assume the financial risk if operating expenses exceed rental income. Given that
the tenant-based voucher income would terminate when each current tenant no longer
resides at the Property, it is likely that the Project would require annual operating
subsidies from the City in the future. The City would also assume the financial liability
of any deferred maintenance or necessary replacements of major building systems
(requiring a significant financial commitment). While the property inspection report has
indicated that substantial rehabilitation of the property is not immediately required, the
age of the building indicates that rehabilitation will be needed in the coming years. In
addition, residents have identified many capital improvements necessary to maintain
livability of the common areas and individual apartments. KMA estimates that the cost
3.E
Packet Pg. 284
12 of 12
to the City to support the rehabilitation and long-term operations of the Project would
range between $10 million to $25 million.
Next Steps
With Council approval, the City Manager would execute a DDA and associated
documents in order to allow the Developer to apply for low-income-housing tax credits
to fund the property rehabilitation. Concurrently, the Developer would apply for Mark-
Up-to-Market vouchers and a HUD Loan. The Developer hopes to complete all
transactions in order to begin rehabilitation in Spring 2022.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The proposed transaction would result in a one-time $13-million payment to the
Citywide Housing Trust Fund and potential ongoing residual receipts payments if the
Property produces surplus operating income. These receipts would be recorded as
revenue and accumulated in account 10.370341. There will be no impact to the City’s
General Fund and no impacts in the current fiscal year, though future budgets would
reflect the transaction, if approved.
Prepared By: Jim Kemper, Housing Program Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Barnard Park Staff Report Term Sheet
B. Written Comments
3.E
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment A
TERM SHEET for REHABILITATION AND EXTENSION OF AFFORDABILITY
BARNARD PARK VILLAS
Staff Recommendation
Term of Agreement City to ground lease the Property to Partnership (TSA and Current
Owner) for 60 Years.
Income Targeting and
Rent Affordability
Affordability covenants to be extended for 60 years to run
concurrently with the ground-lease term. The 60 affordable
apartments to be restricted to very low-income households (50% AMI)
with the affordable rents set per the State redevelopment
methodology.
Section 8 Project-
Based Vouchers
Partnership to apply for Section 8 Project-Based vouchers for all of the
affordable apartments. The Section 8 contract will be for an initial 20-
year term, and Partnership is required to renew the contract if Section
8 remains available.
Rehabilitation Estimated direct rehabilitation budget of $9 million.
Capital Reserve An initial $120,000 capital reserve to be funded.
Annual Reserve
Deposits
$500 per unit per year
Maintenance
Requirements
Partnership required to maintain the Property per the standards
outlined in the Agreement throughout the term.
Social Services Partnership to provide enhanced social services to tenants during the
term.
Proposed Financing HUD-insured 221(d)(4) loan and 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits
Upfront Payments:
To City: City to receive a $13 million upfront payment
To Owner: Current Owner to receive a $19 million upfront payment
Annual Payments:
To City: $1 ground rent payment plus 35% of annual operating surpluses
(Residual Receipts) calculated after Partnership receives a $225,000
per year preferred return. The preferred return ends in Year 15.
To Partnership: Partnership to receive an annual $225,000 preferred return for 15
years. Partnership to receive 65% of the project’s annual operating
surpluses calculated after the preferred return.
3.E.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Barnard Park Staff Report Term Sheet (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 11:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; David White
Subject:Item 3 E Use $ for POD please
EXTERNAL
I support the Rehabilitation of Bernard Park Villas‐ by Tom Safran‐ he is terrific .. and the Villas badly need
something done.. it is a very depressing place now.. really sad.. no. enrichment for seniors and very shabby..
However, the loan money the City will receive should be used to expand the POD program .. it's a great
program that really works to help seniors and keep our landscape..
Thank you,
Danielle Charney
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)
Item 3.E
05/10/22
Item 3.E
05/10/22
3.E.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Written Comments (5082 : Barnard Park Villas - Rehabilitation and Extension of Affordability)