2026-10-07 - Housing Commission

00:00Awesome.

00:04I would like to call the meeting to

00:05order. Welcome to the Housing

00:06Commission's October 7th regular housing

00:08commission meeting. This is a hybrid

00:10meeting with housing commission members,

00:12city staff, and members of the public

00:14participating in the Oak Conference room

00:16and via Zoom. I will call the meeting to

00:19order at 6:30 p.m.

00:23I'd like to introduce staff and housing

00:25commission members present. Uh staff

00:27manage management analyst Adam Patterson

00:29and management analyst Ariana Milton. I

00:32will now do the commissioner roll call.

00:34Um commissioner beely is absent.

00:37Commissioner Chaffa

00:39>> present.

00:40>> Commissioner Deont

00:41>> here.

00:41>> Commissioner Cranon here. Uh I chair

00:44Osler here. Uh Vice Chair Schwitzer

00:47>> here.

00:48>> And Commissioner Wong is absent.

00:51Uh, Ariana, would you provide

00:53instructions to the housing commission

00:54and members of the public on how the

00:55meeting will proceed? Sure.

00:57>> Thank you, Chair Osler and members of

00:59the housing commission. Welcome everyone

01:01to the October 7th regular meeting of

01:03the housing commission and thank you for

01:05attending. Staff will engage cameras and

01:07microphones to make presentations and

01:10respond to the members of the housing

01:12commission. For members of the public

01:13who are in attendance and who wish to

01:15provide public comment on an item on

01:17tonight's agenda, after the chair calls

01:19for public comments on the item you wish

01:21to speak on, please engage the raise

01:24hand feature at the bottom of your

01:25screen for virtual participants. For

01:28those who are calling in from a landline

01:30or a cell phone, please press star 9.

01:32And for those in person, please complete

01:34a speaker card and bring it to me

01:36directly. That concludes the

01:37instructions. I will return the meeting

01:39to the chair. Thank you. The next item

01:42is public comment. Under public comment,

01:44the public may address the housing

01:45commission on any subject not listed on

01:47the agenda. Each speaker may address the

01:50housing commission once under public

01:51comment for a limit of 3 minutes. You

01:53are not required to provide your name or

01:55city of residents, but it is helpful.

01:57The housing commission cannot act on

01:59items not listed on the agenda and

02:01therefore the housing commission cannot

02:02respond to non-aggenda issues brought up

02:04under public comment other than to

02:06provide general information. Ariana, do

02:09we have any public comment? We do not

02:11have any public comment online or person

02:13at this time.

02:14>> All right, we will move on to regular

02:16business. Under regular business, the

02:18housing commission receivesformational

02:20presentations in addition to considering

02:22policy matters and administrative

02:24actions. Uh first we have item D1, which

02:27is to approve the housing commission

02:28meeting minutes for September 2nd, 2026.

02:32Uh this item is now open for public

02:34comment. Do we have any public comment?

02:37We do not have any telephone online or

02:39in person

02:42open for housing commission clarifying

02:44questions and discussions.

02:48>> Did anyone have any hypos or I didn't

02:51see anything?

02:54>> All right. Um, do I have a motion?

02:56Second.

02:58>> I move that we approve the meeting

03:01minutes.

03:04>> I'll second that. All right. Um,

03:07>> so we have a motion by um, Vice Chair

03:11Swizzer and a second by Chair Osler to

03:15approve the housing commission meeting

03:17minutes for September 2nd, 2026. I will

03:20now do a roll call vote. Commissioner

03:22Bailey is absent. Um, Commissioner Cha,

03:26>> yes.

03:27>> Commissioner Dumont,

03:28>> yes.

03:30>> Commissioner Cranon,

03:31>> yes.

03:32>> Chair Oler,

03:33>> yes. and vice chair.

03:36>> Yes.

03:37>> And Commissioner Wong is absent. The

03:39motion passes 50 with two absences.

03:44>> Next, we have item D2, which is to

03:46review and make recommendations to the

03:47city council on establishing proposed

03:49rental assistance and legal assistance

03:51programs. Management analyst Adam

03:54Patterson will give presentation.

03:57>> Hello, your chair.

04:00Uh good evening the housing commission

04:01and members of the public.

04:04Uh my name is Adam Patterson and I'm a

04:06management analyst with the city's

04:07housing division and tonight we're going

04:09to talk about proposed rental and legal

04:11assistance programs.

04:14So staff recommends that the housing

04:16commission review and make a

04:18recommendation to city council on

04:19establishing proposed rental assistance

04:21and legal assistance programs.

04:24Uh the city adopted its first

04:26anti-displacement plan on May 9th, 2026.

04:30Uh rental assistance and legal

04:31assistance programs were identified as

04:33priorities for implementation as part of

04:35that plan. And implementing these

04:37programs is also also maintains the

04:39city's commitments to made in the

04:40housing element and the environmental

04:42justice element.

04:46Uh, in 2025, the city received a

04:49$250,000 grant from the Metropolitan

04:51Transportation Commission's transit

04:53oriented communities housing policy

04:54development grant. This funding is

04:57specifically to implement the the rental

04:59and legal assistance programs and it

05:01applies requirements in the programs for

05:03the city to be compliant with MTC's TFC

05:06policies to receive the full grant

05:07funding.

05:09As part of this grant, the city must

05:10commit a minimum of $300,000 per program

05:13over four years. And funding has been

05:15identified in the BMR housing fund to

05:17cover the cost of these programs.

05:23Some work on these programs has been

05:25done with through a partnership with

05:27heart of San Diego County.

05:30Some of the research that's gone into

05:32the design of the programs includes

05:33community feedback from the entry

05:35displacement plan, evaluation of the

05:37previous housing assistance program that

05:39the city had, reviewing programs and

05:41peer jurisdictions, interviews

05:43[clears throat] with service providers

05:44and experts using the MTC grant

05:46requirements as guidelines, and

05:48soliciting housing commission feedback.

05:51So on September 2nd, uh the housing

05:53commission reviewed and provided

05:54feedback on proposed components of these

05:56programs. Some of the feedback included

05:59uh input on the residency tenure

06:02eligibility, prioritizing funds and

06:04different levels of service,

06:07assistance limits, outreach strategies,

06:09and data reporting metrics. And these uh

06:13this feedback was incorporated in a few

06:16different ways. Some in the program

06:17requirements, some in the proposed RFP

06:19to help uh to to take in all that from

06:21the housing commission. And uh I do want

06:23to note that since this meeting uh on

06:26the 2nd we've the staff received further

06:29clarification and guidance from NTC that

06:32uh relocation assistance. So uh and uh

06:36emergency hotel stays are not eligible

06:38uses for the rental assistance program.

06:41They would be separate programs that

06:44would uh the funds would not the funding

06:47for that program would not count towards

06:48the city's rental assistance. So those

06:50have been removed as eligible witnesses

06:52for rental assistance.

06:58The rental assistance program. So most

07:01of the characteristics eligibility has

07:03remained the same as you would have seen

07:05on September 2nd. Uh funding for the

07:08years still

07:10um suggested to start at $75,000 which

07:12is the minimum requirement for for the

07:14year for year one. Uh we are considering

07:16these as kind of the pilot year for

07:18these programs. Uh so that could be

07:20something that has changed later. Uh

07:23still this is part of their DC grant

07:24requirements to to be for low-income

07:27households or below. So it's for both

07:28the rentals and assistance programs and

07:31they must reside in incorporated on the

07:32park. Um the assistance limit has

07:36remained the same. So a $5,000 maximum

07:38and we wanted to clarify that. So, one

07:41of the housing commission feedback that

07:43we received was I think at the time it

07:45was a one-time $5,000 assistance uh

07:49staff is suggesting to have it one time

07:50per year to help accommodate folks who

07:52may have separate incidences across

07:55different years to be to remain

07:57eligible. Um, also do want to clarify

07:59that that that amount that maximum is

08:01determined at the time of application.

08:04So, whatever they ask for, whatever is

08:05the term is at that application up to

08:07that $5,000 limit would be what they

08:09would receive. Uh, and that would be it

08:11for that for the year. So, it wouldn't

08:13be something where there's a remainder

08:14for per person. It would go into the it

08:16would remain in the fund for other

08:17focused use. Uh,

08:22oh, sorry. Um, so the eligible uses

08:26would be car or pass. So removing the

08:28relocation, removing the first hotel

08:29stays, current past to rent, uh current

08:33pass to utilities, associated late fees,

08:36still remains the same that payments

08:38would go directly to the source utility

08:40company to the landlord. Uh and then the

08:42application require a demonstration of

08:44the need income verification

08:47also incorporating housing commission's

08:48feedback on the rental assistance

08:50program. There was at the time a

08:51proposed minimum 12-month residency

08:53requirement that has been removed. Um

08:56and again mentioned that the eligibility

08:58to receive funds would be renewed

08:59annually in a fiscal year basis

09:04>> for the legal assistance program. Uh a

09:06lot of the eligibility would mirror that

09:08of the rental assistance program.

09:13We we broke down the levels of service

09:15into three levels. So, uh, we kind of

09:18touched upon this in the September 2nd

09:20meeting, but level one being sort of

09:22education workshops and phone, we broke

09:26down to like phone consultations. Level

09:28two would be limited scope

09:30representation, which would be help

09:32filing paperwork in with if you received

09:34an eviction notice, so to avoid those

09:36default judgments. And then level three

09:38would be the full scope representation,

09:40which at this time the city is not

09:42proposing to be part of the this

09:45program. Uh they're proposing we are

09:47proposing level one and level two

09:50service. So really focusing on education

09:51and prevention. Um and then

09:54incorporating some of the housing

09:56commission feedback. Uh staff is

09:58proposing for the level one service a

10:00self-certification on the income

10:02eligibility to help expedite the the

10:04service and and reach a greater number

10:05of people. Uh and then again focusing on

10:08the level focusing the resources as much

10:10as possible on education and prevention.

10:16So staff is still uh looking to to issue

10:19a combined RFP for these services. Again

10:23the idea being one one service provider

10:26estimated that 80% of uh eviction or

10:30eviction cases were related to

10:31non-payment of rent. So really focusing

10:33on the how complimentary these programs

10:36are and the being able to really uh

10:42uh steer people in the services that

10:44they need is as as agile as possible.

10:47Um,

10:49taking in the feedback there was from

10:52housing commission that you know we

10:53don't want to deter any providers from

10:55thinking that they can't they can't they

10:57might not be equipped to to to apply for

10:59both services. We're making it clear in

11:01the RFP that you could provide for any

11:03for for one for both partner whatever

11:06whatever works. We want to encourage as

11:07many responses as possible. Um, and then

11:10also this is where we incorporated some

11:12other housing commission feedback that

11:14we didn't think necessarily was

11:15appropriate for the strict guidelines,

11:17but to ask the service providers to give

11:19us their suggestions on how they would

11:21respond to providing a dedicated

11:23hotline, possibly providing a text uh

11:25option. Uh, what their response time

11:28could be that might be requiring a 48

11:30hour response time, what their weekend

11:32availability might be,

11:34>> uh, and and how we can triage cases

11:36between the two services. So I think the

11:38staff felt that the more appropriate way

11:40to to to approach the that feedback is

11:43to leave it up to the service providers

11:45to respond to that need that we will ask

11:47for is the RFP.

11:49>> Um and then also reporting requirements

11:51that we talked about that we'll get into

11:52in the the next study.

11:56So some of the reporting requirements

11:57that will be included uh in the RFP will

12:00be household information. So we talked a

12:01little bit about demographic data u also

12:04special circumstance information. So

12:06households with minors, households with

12:08seniors, persons with disabilities. So

12:10in geographic locations in the city, so

12:12we can begin as we iterate through the

12:13program start to target uh funds as

12:16needed. if we find that it should be

12:18targeted in different ways. Uh the time

12:20to receive service or understand how

12:22folks how the rapid response is working.

12:25If we're meeting the the the the

12:27requirements that were set out for for

12:29response time, um amount of assistance,

12:32so help calibrate the amount of

12:34allocated per household if that needs to

12:36be changed, the reasons for assistance

12:38to better understand the needs of the

12:39community and other things. Are there

12:41other are there things we can prevent in

12:43other ways that we're seeing a lot of uh

12:45need for these funds? Um

12:49the assistance effectiveness followup to

12:51better understand how the how the

12:53program is is functioning for providing

12:55housing stability because again this

12:56this program is meant to be a long-term

12:58program. It's meant to be short-term

13:00acute issues providing stability for for

13:04households.

13:06the looking at the total number of

13:07inquiries and the outcomes of the cases.

13:09So we can get a better understanding of

13:12uh how great the need is and not just

13:14the effectiveness of how many cases

13:16we've gotten and resolved but how many

13:18have we gotten that maybe we couldn't

13:19address or so we can think about if the

13:22broadness can be expanded. uh and and

13:25SAC is suggesting that this reviewing

13:28this data and reviewing this reporting

13:30might be a good opportunity for the

13:32anti-displacement subcommittee to look

13:34at and also and bring that to the whole

13:35housing commission as we look at future

13:38iterations of of the program

13:44and then post implementation outreach.

13:46Uh this would be I think the minimum

13:48outreach framework. Um this can be

13:51adjusted and changed if needed. This

13:53would be something that uh you know we

13:55could see other a other other methods

13:57and avenues as we go through it. Uh but

14:00a great requirement is to have dedicated

14:02program page on the city website which

14:03we would have for these programs. Uh the

14:05city has a weekly digest which we can

14:07have an ongoing presence in as well as

14:09specific social media channels. Uh

14:11multilingual outreach materials which

14:13are also a great requirement. uh

14:15distribution of materials through other

14:17community organizations,

14:19uh schools, property managers, anywhere

14:21we can, we think we can build that

14:22partnership and get that information

14:24out. Uh outreach at community events and

14:26having a presence at community events

14:28and having those materials available.

14:30And then housing commission feed had

14:32some feedback about making sure other

14:33folks in other facilities are aware of

14:35this program. So if they do have folks

14:36come in, say at the library, the BHCC

14:38and they need help, they know that this

14:40assistance is available. We have

14:42materials available for them there.

14:46And so next steps, uh, the item is

14:48scheduled, um, to go to city council for

14:51review on October 27th. And the staff

14:55would intend to release the RFP shortly

14:57after. And the the draft RFP will be

15:00included at this 27th meeting uh, for

15:02review by the city council.

15:06And staff and uh, HART are available for

15:09any questions. Thank you.

15:15Uh,

15:17do we have any public comments on this

15:19item before we

15:21>> public comments online or in person?

15:24>> Right. Then we'll open up for housing

15:27commission clarifying questions and

15:28discussion.

15:31>> I have a question about um the it's

15:34called a pilot and is that is that the

15:36whole four years of the pilot? I the I

15:39think treating the first year uh as a

15:42pilot

15:43I do think that we have an opportunity

15:46every year to make adjustments and based

15:49on the data and what what it shows and

15:51what the community need is. So you could

15:52treat the whole I mean you could treat

15:54it as an ongoing pilot but I think

15:57certainly the first year um the idea is

15:59to keep it broad get it implemented

16:03start to gather information and see what

16:05what the leads are if we need to adjust

16:07it

16:08>> but we wouldn't be like selecting a

16:10different uh respondent that would just

16:12be adjusting within the confines of

16:14whatever relationship

16:15>> occurred. Okay.

16:17Or should I say it's in here. I missed

16:19that. I at first surprise. Sorry.

16:23There's a lot.

16:24>> But have you already have like a

16:27database of who you will be contacting

16:29for the RFP?

16:30>> We do have a number. Yes, we do. Uh and

16:33we'll also release it

16:36broadly. It won't just be limited to

16:38that. So we have an idea of

16:41it's a fairly limited number of the

16:43service local service providers that so

16:46folks know who those those organizations

16:48are but it'll be broadcast widely for

16:50organizations

16:51>> for newbie

16:53if there's time

16:55>> y

17:00more than question I just want to say

17:02thank you guys for being so responsive

17:03to our comments last time you did a

17:05great job summarizing them changes Um,

17:10al was it under this purview that we

17:13were going to look at a possible

17:17uh

17:19renters register? Are we going to be

17:21looking at some of the applicants that

17:24is

17:25>> not under the not under the government?

17:40I mean, I do think it was very

17:43responsive to our concerns from last

17:44time. So, we can

17:46>> Yeah,

17:46>> I can entertain a motion if anyone has

17:48one. But

17:49>> I just had a question about whether a

17:51household received prior assistance.

17:52That would be something that the pro the

17:55service provider would have in their

17:57records. It wouldn't be something you'd

17:59have to necessarily ask

18:03>> them about the list of recipients.

18:06>> Yes.

18:07>> Put them on the spot.

18:08>> Yep.

18:09>> And that's to help understand

18:13>> uh if there's other services that maybe

18:15could be provided or what it's better

18:17again to understand the the needs of

18:19households.

18:23>> Yeah, definitely. Um thank you for

18:25incorporating our feedback. I mean I

18:27think that um having those tiers of

18:30service for some of the legal

18:31requirements are really important. Um I

18:34mean it would be ideal if we could have

18:36unlimited funding to provide full level

18:38of service but I think the tiers and

18:40focusing on education is a good place to

18:43to land and then also removing that

18:45requirement um of kind of the the

18:48tendency of you know whether we're

18:50giving preference to someone who's lived

18:51here six months versus five years. I

18:54think if you're living in the city, uh,

18:56you're a city resident. So, I think that

18:58was that was a nice thing just calling

19:00out from the list of all the other

19:02suggestions that we had. But I mean,

19:05really pleased with um the the document

19:08and staff have prepared and I would like

19:11to put

19:13>> question. Sorry. Okay. Um, I just about

19:15renoviction. Is that um it's covered in

19:19maybe the legal

19:21assistance or do we have is this

19:25>> what was part of

19:26>> a renoviction um for um preventing

19:30renovations is that

19:33>> so the so yeah if uh

19:37>> like raising the

19:38>> yeah that would be more of a legal

19:39thing.

19:39>> Yes. So there is yes and

19:43there is the the city's tenant

19:44relocation ordinance does have some

19:47protection for that but it would be yes

19:50more of a

19:51>> legal

19:51>> legal yeah

19:52>> and they that hopefully that would come

19:54in the education and

19:57>> right yeah and and then the

19:59>> one service

19:59>> yes and and

20:01I think we'll see what response we get

20:03from providers because I think

20:06particularly for the legal we'll get

20:08more information about um what here's

20:12the funding, here's what the city's ask

20:14is, tell us h how what what types of

20:17service can you provide and what can you

20:18how many households can you serve and I

20:20think um you know that might even fall

20:23but depending on the level where that

20:25escalates but that could even maybe

20:27level two includes you know again not

20:29full representation but more in-depth

20:32case work where they maybe have to it's

20:34not just hey I have a 30-minute phone

20:36consultation I I need ongoing assistance

20:38it's to deal with this problem. Um, but

20:40it doesn't rise to the level of

20:42representation or so, so it could fall

20:44beyond that.

20:45>> Yeah.

20:46>> I mean, also just it the data will be

20:48collected, I guess. So, that's what's

20:51really important.

20:53>> So, we know what this what the scope of

20:55the bombs. Great. Thank you.

20:57>> Yeah. Since heart's here and they they

21:00straddle kind of boundaries. Is there an

21:03example where they have worked with the

21:05city that's used received it using it?

21:08What is it that they found in the

21:11service provider that they like is kind

21:13of close to a an effective model? Is

21:16that a Yeah.

21:17>> What is the best model they've seen?

21:18Yeah.

21:19>> Yeah.

21:23>> Do you have a question? that can.

21:26>> Yeah,

21:26>> I was saying Leslie might be better uh

21:29able to answer this question um if they

21:31were able to come on. Um but I can say

21:34that we also worked with East Palo Alto

21:37on their uh RFP for legal and rental

21:40assistance. U but that is again kind of

21:43like yours. It's still too new on the

21:45street. That money is going out the door

21:47now. But um um that we don't have any

21:50evidence from the current RFP, but I

21:53think Leslie can speak to the experience

21:55of the providers more broadly.

21:58>> Yeah. And I'm sorry, I don't think I

22:00heard the actual question. Well, if it

22:03could be repeated,

22:07>> the question is, is there a model from

22:09other cities that you've worked with on

22:11what you feel is working for those

22:13cities? Well,

22:15>> um the only thing I could think of is um

22:18the legal providers that are able to

22:21write the checks themselves. So, I think

22:23what I've heard is that they are able to

22:25have a quicker turnaround and so they

22:28are kind of essentially able to resolve

22:30that on the spot and negotiate with the

22:32landlord

22:34um and settle the rears. Um so so I

22:38think that that's I think what I've

22:40heard has been a good model versus

22:43having two separate providers where

22:45there can sometimes have different um

22:49supporting documentation that's required

22:51or a whole different application process

22:54um which can just buy up more time.

22:58>> Thank you.

23:03Maybe a follow-up comment to that, just

23:06putting it out there when staff's

23:08reviewing these proposals, maybe that's

23:11something to look out for.

23:12>> So, yeah, sure.

23:15>> And and I that is and that's one reason

23:17why the RFP is structured so that you

23:19can have a combination uh an agency

23:22coming in that will do both legal and

23:23rental assistance so that we can address

23:26that kind of situation.

23:36I would like to make a motion

23:40that we recommend uh to city council

23:42approval of staffs.

23:46>> I'll second. Okay.

23:49>> Great. So, we have a motion by uh Vice

23:52Chair Schwitzer and a second by

23:54Commissioner Cranon to recommend

23:56approval of proposed rental assistance

23:59and legal assistance programs to the

24:01city council. Waldo roll call vote.

24:04Commissioner Bey is absent. Commissioner

24:06Choa,

24:07>> yes.

24:08>> Commissioner Deont,

24:10>> yes.

24:11>> Commissioner Graden,

24:12>> yes.

24:13>> Chair Osler,

24:14>> yes.

24:15>> And vice.

24:17>> Absolutely.

24:19>> Great. So, the motion passes 50 with two

24:22absesses.

24:24>> Thank you, Ten and Lesie. Appreciate it.

24:27>> Thank you. Thank you so much.

24:29>> Thank you.

24:30>> Thank you.

24:33>> Next up, we have item D3, which is to

24:36review and provide feedback on the draft

24:382026 to 2027 below market rate housing

24:40fund notice of funding availability.

24:43Management analyst Ariana Milton will

24:45give the presentation.

24:47Thank you, Chair Osler. Good evening,

24:51um, staff members, commissioners, any

24:54members of the public. My name is Ariana

24:56Mo. I'm management analyst with housing

24:58division and tonight I'll be doing a

25:00presentation on agenda item D3.

25:09>> So,

25:11starting with staff's recommendation. So

25:12tonight, staff recommends that the

25:15housing commission review and provide

25:17feedback on the proposed 2026 2027 draft

25:21notice of funding availability, also

25:24known as the NOA.

25:29So to give some background, um the goal

25:31of the NOA is to support the

25:33preservation and production of

25:34affordable housing in Window Park. uh by

25:37issuing local funding through the NOA,

25:39applicants can use it to fill the gaps

25:41between the total costs of their

25:43development project and other funding

25:45sources that they also may be awarded.

25:48Um this allows pro projects that are

25:51awarded these funds to look more

25:53attractive uh or competitive when being

25:56evaluated. And the funding for NOA comes

25:59from the city's VMR fund and it's

26:01referenced in two programs in the city's

26:03housing element. These programs include

26:06a program H1.h,

26:08which requires that the city administer

26:10and release a NOA no less than every two

26:12years, and program H1

26:16H1I,

26:17which requires that the city um continue

26:20to work with nonprofit organizations and

26:23allows them to apply for funding to

26:25produce and preserve affordable housing.

26:28Um, additionally, I would also like to

26:30point out that the issuance of the NOA

26:33corresponds with recommendation number

26:34five um of the anti-displacement plan

26:37which was um adopted in May of this

26:39year. Um, recommendation number five is

26:42also known as the home preservation

26:44program and that program refers to the

26:46physical preservation or rehabilitation

26:49of existing residential structures uh

26:51which can give preference and funding to

26:53multifamily projects. Um, also just

26:56another note to call out, um, these

26:58housing element program reference

27:00numbers are listed differently than the

27:02ones in the staff report. These are the

27:04correct ones. The ones that report got a

27:06bit mixed up, so I wanted to just make

27:08sure and catch that on every window. Um,

27:10so these in the presentation are correct

27:12from the summary.

27:17So to get into some past information

27:19about the NOA, um you have information

27:22here on past NOA funding that's been

27:24awarded. Um so the last NOA cycle was

27:27the 2022 to 2023 cycle. During that

27:30time, the city awarded $180,000 to

27:33rebuilding together for housing re

27:35rehabilitation and uh 1.2 2 million was

27:38awarded to Habitat for Humanity of

27:40Greater San Francisco for the housing

27:42repair and upgrade program that focused

27:45specifically on the Bell Haven

27:46neighborhood at the time. Since then,

27:48the program has been expanded to accept

27:51applications from all over the park, but

27:52I just wanted to add

27:54>> just is that program still in effect and

27:57the money hasn't been exhausted yet?

27:58>> The program is still in effect. Yes.

28:00>> Because I just I see the date and it's

28:02that's just the note. Okay.

28:03>> Yeah. Um and then also uh per uh per

28:07housing element program H1.h NAS are

28:10supposed to be released every two years.

28:13Um however a NOA for the 2024 cycle was

28:17not issued but that was due to limited

28:19funding. Um however there were two

28:22projects that were issued off cycle

28:24rewards. Uh one was for Alliant

28:27communities and that was to go towards

28:29320 Sheridan which is the 88 units for

28:32teacher housing. And then also, um,

28:34Habitat was able to acquire, um,

28:38additional money to, uh, work on 335

28:42Pierce, which is they're going to be

28:43building eight homes there.

28:46>> 320 just broke ground, didn't it?

28:48Something like that. Yeah.

28:52>> Okay. So, to get into the current

28:53funding, so right now, um, there's

28:56approximately $4 million available in

28:59the EMR fund. Um, city council will

29:02determine how much funding will actually

29:04be awarded, if any at all, because the

29:07council has the right to not release

29:09funding for this cycle. Um, all

29:11proposals will be evaluated for

29:13consistency. And as far as what the city

29:16is looking for in the proposals, we're

29:18looking for understanding of the

29:19community, having like a clear public

29:22engagement, community outreach process,

29:25um experience and success in affordable

29:28housing development and also that um the

29:30projects uh contribute overall to the

29:34city's housing goals.

29:38So um comparing this NOA cycle to the

29:42last NOA cycle um overall the draft NOA

29:45has minor amendments in comparison to

29:47the last uh past NOA. This draft NOA and

29:51the previously released 2022 2023 NOA.

29:54They share the same review process. They

29:57share the same um application submitt

29:59requirements. Uh the amendments in this

30:01NOA are going to include um a

30:03prioritization of preservation and

30:06rehabilitation of existing multifamily

30:08housing. Um that's called out and then

30:10also projects that provide extremely

30:13low-income units. Uh also projects that

30:16set aside units for special needs

30:18populations as well. And that's

30:20highlighted in the announcement. Uh and

30:23additionally, uh staff added language

30:25stating that the city council reserves

30:27the right to issue or non-issue funding

30:30for the cycles NOA and then how much of

30:32that um is supposed to be allocated is

30:34also their right to accept.

30:39So here is the tenative release

30:42schedule. Um, right now the NOA is

30:46scheduled to be released on Thursday,

30:48October 15th, um, with questions due on

30:52Friday the 6th. Responses will be due to

30:55those questions about a week later um,

30:58giving time for staff to reply and make

31:01contact with um, potential applicants.

31:03The applications will be due um, by 5:00

31:06p.m. on Friday, November 20th. And then

31:09after that, housing commission

31:10presentations will then follow in

31:13winter. And then their recommendations

31:16will our recommendation will be brought

31:18to the housing commission in winter and

31:20then city council considerations will

31:22then happen probably for the spring. I'm

31:25just trying to give us time. Um but

31:27that's right now that's the schedule. Um

31:29and I also would Yeah.

31:31>> Question.

31:32>> Yeah.

31:32>> Uh should the third last line be winter

31:342026? Oh, winter also is the beginning.

31:38>> Yeah, it's January.

31:41>> Sorry, I had I hit a B where I was like,

31:43well, you're wait.

31:46>> Sorry. Um, so yeah, additionally, I

31:48would like to also point out that the SK

31:50this schedule considers the timing of

31:52Sanonteo County's uh 2027 2028 winter

31:56NOA that's supposed to be released in

31:59December. And the county's NOA would

32:01require a third-party funding agreement

32:03as part of that application. So in

32:05theory, if applicants um who may be

32:08chosen to receive those funds from the

32:10city's NOA, they could submit a

32:12commitment of funds to the county and

32:14that would strengthen their application

32:16with the county for their rental.

32:19>> Have we ever been able to piggyback on

32:21on Sano funds for these things? Yeah.

32:25>> Yeah.

32:27I don't remember all the specifics, but

32:28the 320 shared in that was pretty

32:30complex that

32:37>> Oh, no. Sorry. I think we're we're out

32:39of order.

32:43[laughter]

32:44>> Okay. So, accidentally getting into

32:47discussion. Um, so just potential like

32:50things to think about for your feedback.

32:52Um, tonight we're encouraging you guys

32:54to give us feedback on the draft. Um

32:56things to consider would be the tenative

32:58release schedule, uh potential funding

33:01allocation, and then any thoughts that

33:03you'd like uh for staff to consider as

33:05we move forward.

33:08And that is going to conclude my

33:11presentation. We're looking forward to

33:13your thoughts and um I'll now return the

33:16meeting to the chair. Thank you. Great.

33:18>> Um we're open for public comment. Uh do

33:20we have any public comment?

33:26We do not have any comment online for

33:29staff time.

33:31>> All right, then we're all open for

33:33submission clarifying questions and I

33:35will give us commission response.

33:37>> Um, yeah, I did have a question um about

33:41um this is the first NOA cycle I've been

33:44through. Um, and is it's it sounds like

33:47it's rather it's frontloaded. So, are we

33:49making decisions about applicants like

33:52at the very beginning of the cycle? I

33:54and maybe I missed something.

33:58>> So, essentially a little bit just

34:00because we're trying to align the county

34:04schedule as well.

34:05>> And so, um it's not necessarily

34:07frontloaded, but there is about a month.

34:10We like to give a month between the time

34:12it's released until um applications are

34:16due so that people have the time to

34:19follow up and ask questions and give us

34:22their their proposals um because we do

34:25have quite a few project priorities that

34:27are listed in the announcement. And so

34:29it it is a little bit frontloaded but it

34:31is also done to give people a chance to

34:34apply for other funding sources and get

34:36those letters.

34:38>> It makes sense. It's a very short cycle,

34:40but I'm sure they're all creeping into

34:42>> I did comment on that the cycle. Um I

34:45think packet page 48 as well as in the

34:48presentation. Um just wanting

34:51clarification. So okay, November 20th

34:54applications are due and then

34:56presentations to the commission are

34:58going to be in winter of this year.

35:02>> Yes.

35:02>> Okay. So I think what's listed is winter

35:05202

35:12beginning beginning of next year.

35:13>> Yeah.

35:14>> Yeah. Um sorry I haven't been

35:16experienced this. Do we need to make a

35:18moment? We still have a quorum but the

35:19fact that Commissioner Chapa stepped out

35:21towards the restroom. think

35:23>> I feel like as long as we're maintaining

35:26>> the way you did that. Okay.

35:29>> Yeah.

35:32>> Um

35:34cool. Uh I guess I wanted to clarify uh

35:38when this comes back before the

35:39commission, do we see all the

35:41applications at once and then we select

35:43a subset? Are we doing this kind of as

35:45an up down on each one? like what's the

35:47because you know in a scenario where we

35:49get um more responses than funding

35:52availability I'm wondering how we would

35:55manage selecting

35:58>> yeah so the applications when they do

36:00come in um we will be working with a

36:02consultant um that we've worked on with

36:04previous NAS to kind of help us do

36:06analysis on the ones that we receive and

36:09so basically kind of like whiling it

36:11down and then bringing um what staff is

36:15remen recommending.

36:17>> So, you'll come in with the

36:18recommendation first. Yeah.

36:20>> Yes. We'll we'll have the the applicants

36:22have their own presentations and like

36:25almost kind of share their proposals

36:27with you guys and then kind of go from

36:29there. But staff will have looked at all

36:32of the comprehensive proposals

36:34beforehand.

36:36>> And um showing my ignorance, but looking

36:38looking through the form, there was a

36:39lot of information that I can see being

36:40not as relevant to some. Most of that

36:42form is sort of an optional way to

36:44provide information.

36:45>> Yeah. Okay.

36:46>> Yeah. I'm trying to keep it um like kind

36:49of do a balancing act between like these

36:52are the things that we are going to be

36:54prioritizing going forward in this

36:56cycle, but also not wanting to close the

36:59door and be incredibly strict on what

37:03people can't apply for submit.

37:08And then I guess my last question would

37:10be um those those prioritizations are

37:12they based primarily on the

37:15anti-displacement plan primarily on

37:16housing elements on some nation?

37:19>> Um it's going to be based on the housing

37:21element and the city's housing goals

37:23like basically overall those are the

37:25those are the that's the largest.

37:28>> Sure. I I guess the question is like

37:29specifically the the focus for example

37:32on on maintaining multif family

37:36and is this something where we kind of

37:38like had an idea like do we know what

37:40we're going to do for the next noa ahead

37:42of time or is it we're going to assess

37:43at that time based on the house

37:46>> I believe it's going to be based off of

37:48the housing element going forward I

37:50don't know how

37:53>> uh yeah I mean no I don't really I mean

37:55I think to your to just the one part of

37:57your

37:58Um,

38:00we will it's not something we know like

38:02this far ahead of time for like two

38:04years from now, but we'll assess as we

38:05get closer. Yeah. And I think

38:06>> Yeah.

38:08>> Sorry, a very open-ended question. Yeah.

38:10Anyone else else have

38:13>> maybe just a comment? I mean, I know

38:14that we didn't release um funding in the

38:17last cycle through this process, but I

38:20mean, there were projects that were

38:21awarded um funds and I think it based on

38:25the amounts what there's like 4 million

38:27available available funds. Um so, I mean

38:31exciting that we're releasing this that

38:34maybe some of those funds can rather

38:36than acrue interests actually be put to

38:38some projects. So, really excited for

38:41that. Mhm.

38:42>> I actually do have a question related to

38:43that. It's not super relevant this time,

38:46especially as next time, but is there

38:48like a a minimum balance or an emergency

38:50amount that we would typically keep in

38:52the fund or um is this the sort of thing

38:56where it is as as

39:00saying like getting the money out the

39:01door of a priority for supporting our

39:03goals?

39:05>> Yeah. So, there there is. Yeah. there's

39:07still a contingency uh and for things

39:10like for example the rental and legal

39:12assistance programs are going to be

39:13funded through that. So there's like

39:14those that goes into the long-term

39:16thinking like what is available and what

39:19is set aside for other purposes.

39:21>> Sure.

39:22>> And if we recall what was sent to what

39:24320 Sheridan was what a million and

39:27maybe some change that was was sent out.

39:30So, I mean, it's not like we're funding

39:32a $4 million project with the FL.

39:36>> Yeah,

39:37>> that was a loan.

39:38>> Yeah,

39:39>> these aren't all loans, are they?

39:40>> No, there could be. Yeah.

39:42>> Yeah, it could be different grants.

39:44>> I did have a question about um there's

39:47the priorities. The project is in

39:49Central or West Menlo Park. Is that new

39:52terms of the priorities?

39:54>> It's relating to the housing.

39:56>> Yeah, that that's not new. That was also

39:59in the previous NA that was issued.

40:01>> What's this?

40:03>> It's in the list of priorities. There's

40:05lots of there's there's dozen of things

40:09there. I mean, they're all consists

40:12of the goals objectives of the housing

40:14element. Um,

40:17but it was just I just noticed that it

40:19was the project is in central or west of

40:22the park. Makes it a more of a priority.

40:25just

40:27>> makes me curious about it

40:28>> because we're trying to get some

40:30>> trying to bring affordable housing to

40:33>> Yeah. Yeah. exciting.

40:36>> Um, and I had a a question um uh from

40:41someone who um asked me if this meant if

40:44there was any possibility of using it

40:46for converting

40:48um naturally affordable there's there's

40:52a lot of aging aging multif family units

40:55around the city and um converting

40:59naturally affordable places to deed

41:01restricted. Does that ever come up?

41:04>> Oh, like versus So would be like versus

41:06production of housing. It's like

41:08converting existing housing to

41:10>> catching them when they're being sold.

41:12And

41:12>> isn't the goal really with Arena, the

41:15regional housing um allowance like to

41:19have production of housing rather than a

41:21conversion? But I don't know your guys's

41:24take on

41:24>> do we do we get credit for number? I

41:26guess you're asking, do we get credit

41:27for the low-inccome members

41:30are affordable from old existing units?

41:33This also sort of I I guess sorry I I

41:36sent an email. This is very similar to

41:38the question that I I originally got and

41:40I know that goes over this, but yeah,

41:43I'm also interested to know whether this

41:45would be eligible potentially yet if so

41:49>> because ideally those units would be

41:50captured in the reporting of an existing

41:53like residential unit. So there would be

41:57theory would be already documented. So

41:59it's not really can't double dip.

42:01>> So

42:02>> yeah,

42:03>> but if they weren't at all a before

42:06>> or they were just naturally affordable

42:08because it counting against one category

42:10the other

42:11>> I mean if we're going to align with the

42:12housing you really kind of want to have

42:14it match kind of the the rea

42:17tricky thing, right?

42:20>> But I mean there's other other types

42:21too. Got to be to be clear on sorry

42:26we can talk all night.

42:32>> So

42:35I think

42:37try to answer it in different parts. I

42:38think that

42:40if a proposal were to come in that were

42:43to to to accomplish that like that would

42:46not I think that would be an acceptable

42:48proposal to that they're going to

42:51acquire a old development and deed

42:54restrict it. I don't know the answer to

42:57counting the units. I mean, I do think

42:59that deed restricting them is a big

43:02distinction between having been

43:04naturally affordable because I don't

43:05know that we can always know what is out

43:08there and naturally affordable. So

43:11I I I don't but I don't know for sure

43:13whether it would be countered or not but

43:15I do think that there is significance to

43:18converting it to truly deeprested

43:21rental registry is important

43:25>> I think related or

43:28um

43:31uh um

43:34related to conversations I've been

43:36having there are people who are

43:37interested in buying down the

43:39affordability level of otherwise like to

43:44be produced homes. Is that something

43:46that would be eligible through this

43:48pivot?

43:52>> I don't know that typically if if if

43:54what you're referring to is like buying

43:56down the eligibility of like

43:57inclusionary units and otherwise

43:59privately funded and

44:01>> yes

44:01>> typically no it has to be a nonprofit.

44:05>> Okay.

44:05>> Yeah,

44:05>> that's interesting. Yeah,

44:07>> that there are potential projects where

44:10like an affordable component is separate

44:12and sold off to another nonprofit

44:14developer to to develop.

44:16>> Perhaps they actually from a previous

44:19NOA for the 123 independence project,

44:22Habitat is doing that component of that

44:24project

44:25>> and they were awarded funding for that.

44:27So I think from that perspective that's

44:28possible.

44:29>> Sure. Um,

44:30>> but it would it would involve the

44:32project being structured around that

44:34versus just something where we pay out

44:36BMR to to the chief.

44:38>> That's just a piggy bank for AMR.

44:41>> Okay.

44:55Well, um, you can entertain a motion if

44:58if people are out of questions, but

45:02>> just a

45:04question for you guys since the motion

45:06is technically framed around getting

45:08your guys' feedback. I mean, yeah, it

45:11seems I'm just trying

45:14>> I mean,

45:15>> I appreciate the clarify questions. I

45:17don't really have any. It seemed it

45:19seemed reasonable and open-ended like I

45:21suspect.

45:22>> My feedback is I'm looking forward to

45:23seeing

45:25responses.

45:26>> Yeah,

45:26>> looking forward to the responses.

45:28>> Yeah, maybe I can make a stab.

45:29>> Sure. Sure. Frame it. Um

45:32staff would like to forward the

45:34affformented comments during the meeting

45:37to for staff's consideration as we

45:39continue to finalize uh this and

45:43availability release on the 15th.

45:48I'll second that.

45:56>> All right. Um, it looks like we have a

45:58motion by vice chair Spitzer and Chair

46:02Osler to

46:05provide the for mentioned feedback on

46:08the draft 627 below market rate housing

46:12fund where they fund the notice of

46:15funding availability also known as DOA.

46:18We will now take a long vote.

46:21Commissioner Bailey is absent.

46:23Commissioner Choa,

46:24>> yes. Commissioner Dumont,

46:26>> yes.

46:28>> Commissioner Kanan,

46:29>> yes.

46:31>> Uh, Sher Al,

46:32>> yes.

46:33>> Vice Schwitzer,

46:34>> yes.

46:36>> Great. The motion passes 50 with two

46:39absences.

46:42>> Okay, we'll move on to reports and

46:44announcements. Do we have any individual

46:46commissioner updates?

46:50Uh this past week I was at um the state

46:54planning conference down in LA. Um they

46:57had a really informative legislative

46:59update session. Um as we know there's

47:03everchanging laws with housing in

47:05California. So happy to share those

47:07slides um to staff to maybe distribute

47:10to the rest of the commission. Um it's

47:12available online at their uh website if

47:16you want to type in um APA 2026 um

47:20legislative updates. You can find the

47:23presentation slide deck of the pending

47:25list legislation um that's on the floor

47:29as well as what's been approved and kind

47:30of a recap of um what that might change.

47:33Um just noting a few things for the sake

47:36of brevity. um a lot of changes with

47:38some of the housing affordability act um

47:42and waiverss and concessions that would

47:44directly affect uh the purview of the

47:46commission. So

47:48>> you're kind of at the end of the

47:49legislative year that there's a lot of

47:51signings going on right now.

47:52>> Yeah. Yeah.

47:56>> Any other individual updates?

48:03>> We can go to subcommittee updates. Do we

48:06have any updates from our subcommittees?

48:10>> I think we've all been

48:13>> share we had assigned

48:15>> um the uh production

48:19assigned to contact.

48:20>> We did do that. I haven't done anything

48:23since we did that.

48:25>> [laughter]

48:26>> We we had a brief meeting where we uh

48:28made a plan to reach out to

48:31uh developers for fast PMR agreements

48:35and just get their thoughts on them on

48:36the program and and what what happened

48:39after um and their perspective. Uh but

48:42as mentioned I think beyond the signing

48:45ranges of them I I certainly haven't

48:48moved. So um yeah

48:52anything from from other subcommittees?

48:55Okay.

48:57Um I guess do we have recommendations

49:00for future agenda items?

49:04I I maybe should say briefly that I I

49:08emailed I guess asking for an update on

49:11specific conversations I've been having

49:14with the public around um

49:18buy downs, how the city shapes uh what

49:22affordability levels we're seeking from

49:24people. I I um I should probably have

49:26just had the email ready, but basically

49:29um I had a couple conversations and one

49:32in particular where someone was asking

49:35why does the city not simply require

49:37only VI units? Um

49:40>> but I think it it would be useful to to

49:42go through the answer to that because I

49:44think it is a frequently asked question.

49:46Um and

49:47>> okay, I spend a lot of time answering

49:49that.

49:49>> Yes. Um, so having having some some

49:52clear answers from staff that would be

49:54helpful,

49:56but that's not, you know,

50:01your discretion.

50:02>> We've been planning to do a program on

50:05that.

50:06>> That'd be hard.

50:08>> Yeah. I mean, I I've also had questions

50:10about um

50:14why the city doesn't buy properties.

50:16[laughter]

50:18um

50:20>> and make them love if you come

50:23um

50:24>> to the no.

50:26>> Yeah. And then and then give them the

50:28what the average cost is to build out a

50:32good answer. I think that

50:33>> I learned a lot just after that was the

50:36conversation was before I saw the thing.

50:38I was like, "Oh, wow."

50:41>> I wish I'd had that.

50:42>> Do you have a point? Is is it art that

50:45has a trust fund where if you're a

50:47renter, they make you stay until your

50:50lease. If somebody's trying trying to

50:52buy the property, they can buy it and

50:55put in a trust

50:58>> that I'm not sure. I don't believe they

51:00are still on.

51:01>> They're definitely not.

51:03>> There is an organization that actually

51:05does buy properties

51:08uh to make keep them low interesting

51:11>> low income. I'm going to look it up, but

51:13I was going to ask I think it was raised

51:15at our subcommittee why there isn't an

51:19email housing commission email

51:22>> wait

51:25not every one of us but one through one

51:28of the staff that is housing commission

51:31that you have access to that I can give

51:34>> those comments are for

51:36>> yeah other cities I've seen it where

51:38they have a central

51:40>> like a email contact and then staff

51:42manages that account and sends those

51:44correspondents out in an update to

51:49>> rather than rather than using personal

51:51ones.

51:53It was a suggestion to go later.

51:57>> Sure. We can talk to about that too. But

52:02>> I know from

52:03>> I'm trying to remember in the context of

52:04our conversation, were we also talking

52:05about whether it would be possible to

52:07send from that as well?

52:11>> I'm trying to remember if that came up,

52:13but I I know that's beyond scope

52:15potentially for this. We were just

52:16talking about like if we were sending

52:18out a request for someone to get back to

52:20us

52:21>> because right now we would just send it

52:23as ourselves and say, "Hey, I'm I'm with

52:25the health commission." But whether or

52:26not it would help with responsibility.

52:37>> Um I guess in terms of future agenda

52:39items, I was more thinking about

52:41location like what would be appropriate

52:44when would be appropriate to go back to

52:45the event in Canvas. Um maybe with

52:49considering

52:52>> do one of these topics is there any

52:54topics that align well that's a good

52:56question.

52:58>> Yeah.

53:01Also, do we have limitations like I'm

53:04trying to remember exactly how we

53:05phrased it whether

53:07whether we need to do not that I

53:10wouldn't be open to having other ones

53:11but I know that it can be fun staff

53:12whether we've already done as many this

53:14year as we're supposed to do next year

53:16but

53:17>> we said I think we said two didn't

53:19>> we have exceeded a work plan goal

53:22>> yeah we

53:23>> which on the one hand is great on the

53:25other hand

53:26>> um probably don't want to move November

53:29December as a result but we might want

53:30to move January. I mean, we could we

53:33could move one and then figure out what

53:35goes there as the other end.

53:37>> Yeah, actually, we've been in touch with

53:39VH staff and um we would not be able to

53:43have one in November or December just

53:46because of bookings already. So, we're

53:49going to look into

53:51>> um doing that in the new year.

53:52>> Okay. Yeah. and we take into

53:54consideration the items that that might

53:57make the most sense.

54:00>> And then I guess really future agenda

54:03items. Um the

54:05status I guess like the report out we

54:07had it earlier this year of just the

54:10progress to the housing element goals.

54:13Um generally we received that at the

54:16spring of of the of the year or spring

54:19to summer.

54:22Um

54:24yeah.

54:25>> So okay something to look forward to.

54:28>> I I I do have a question for staff. I

54:31there was a we did a report a pipeline

54:34report in July. Right. Was that driven

54:38by by downtown plan or it seemed to have

54:41that kind of flavor to it but I

54:44>> uh I do not know. Yeah. I'm not sure. I

54:48thought it was really interesting but

54:49and very helpful. But

54:53>> thank you.

54:56Future agenda item

54:58>> or are we still there?

55:00>> Um is it possible to consider

55:04because when we had the BMI

55:07uh report of the units quite a few

55:09weren't rented out. Is it possible for

55:12us to consider to to look at uh

55:16encouraging

55:18renting out units, BMI units, right?

55:22>> BMR vacancies in general.

55:23>> Vacancies. Yeah. Because I I am I am

55:26familiar with places where, you know,

55:29you have BMR some some commercial

55:32properties can leave them blank. They

55:34don't have to rent them out. They're not

55:36motivated. But we should consider

55:39encouraging. And if they they go

55:41unwritten out for a year, there should

55:43be a fee.

55:45>> Consider

55:47Yeah, sure.

55:47>> Do you want to like a vacancy report

55:51perhaps or to start?

55:53>> I mean, we do get a vacancy report, but

55:55we noticed that some were just vacant

55:57and and developers aren't motivated to

56:01rent them out.

56:02>> Maybe a study session

56:03>> study. Yeah.

56:05>> Why would look like to reduce the

56:07environment fees?

56:09>> Yeah. Or maybe the report shows it's not

56:11>> the report shows it's not a problem, but

56:13>> Right.

56:16>> [laughter]

56:18>> Y probably should leave the study

56:20session after the report.

56:32>> Any other future agenda items?

56:37All right, I'm going to move us on to

56:39EOL then. Uh so staff will provide any

56:41staff updates and announcements.

56:48>> All right. All right.

56:49>> Uh then we go to E5 which is to receive

56:51and file the 2026 2027 housing

56:53commission work.

56:55>> Yes. I'm just gonna do all. So uh every

56:59year after city council approves the

57:01commission's work plan, work plan must

57:03be officially filed before the end of

57:05the year with the city court. And this

57:07is done by placing the item on the

57:09commission's agenda. Um, so essentially

57:11this is just like anformational item to

57:14officially file the approved work plan.

57:17There's like no motion or formal has to

57:19happen.

57:20>> Just be aware.

57:20>> Just an update that it's officially been

57:22filed.

57:23>> All right.

57:26>> Um, well, is there anything else before

57:28we adjourn?

57:31>> All right. I will adjourn the meeting at

57:337:28 p.m.

57:35>> Thank you.

57:36>> Very efficient.