201 Cortez Drive (File 26-0187)

Context: Minutes entries record the amendment as 'Carried: 5 to 1' with Canales against, the item as 'Unanimously carried' 6-0, and note for two motions that the maker, seconder, and tally were not recorded or published.

Recommended: Ask the City Clerk for the certified minutes and the written amendment text for this item, because the published record shows an amendment carried 5 to 1 with Canales opposed while the item as a whole is recorded as unanimously carried 6 to 0, and two earlier motions have no tally published at all. Without the certified record you cannot establish what was actually adopted or whether the operative text is the main motion or the amended version.

Context: The February 3, 2026 item authorized signing 'Resolutions of Support and/or Resolutions of No Objection' for three Paisano Housing Redevelopment Corporation sites, and the record does not state which document each site received.

Recommended: Obtain the signed resolution documents for Cielo Towers II at 201 Cortez Drive, Eastside Crossings II at Zaragoza/Joe Battle, and Siesta Jardin at 9009 Dyer Street to confirm whether each site received a Resolution of Support or only a Resolution of No Objection, since the two carry different weight in a competitive application. If you are competing in the same 2026 9% regional competitive low-income housing tax credit round, you need to know which of the three bundled Paisano Housing Redevelopment Corporation sites got the stronger document before you finalize your own submission.

Context: On February 3, 2026 the amendment carried 5 to 1 with Canales recorded against, yet Canales then moved the approved-as-revised motion seconded by Niño, and the item appeared twice on the record with no published amendment text.

Recommended: Request the written amendment language and the final approved-as-revised resolution text, then ask why Canales was the lone vote against the amendment and then made the motion to approve the item as revised. The public record shows the item was amended and re-approved the same day but never states which of the three Paisano Housing Redevelopment Corporation projects the revision affected.