(Notes taken by Pat Dwire, Senior Community Development Planner, Housing Authority.)

Attending: Gordon MacKenzie, Jane Wheeler, Philip Childress, Randy Randazzo, Joseph Hertlein. Housing Authority Staff: Starla Warren, Ed Canades, Tony Caldwell, Pat Dwire, (contracted architect) Henry Ruhnke. Also present: Jim Schiffner; Planning and Building Inspection Department, County of Monterey.

Starla Warren opened the meeting by outlining the agenda for the meeting as follows; Review of the Focus Group Minutes of the meeting of Nov. 7, 2002, and discussion of comments and questions that Ms. Warren added to these minutes, as Ms. Warren was not in attendance at that meeting. The discussion of these issues was to be followed by a site tour and unit tour to inspect the site and unit problems identified in the minutes and the list of necessary improvements recommended by the architect, Henry Ruhnke. After the tour, discussion of these problems and next steps would be discussed. The Focus Group agreed to this agenda.

Ms. Warren discussed in general terms the list of cost-cutting measures recommended by the Focus Group listed in the minutes of the Nov. 7^th meeting. While the input of the residents on the priority and need for certain improvements was valued by the Housing Authority, Ms. Warren made clear the first priority of the Housing Authority is to resolve any structural/ major building system problems that pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of the residents. While some residents may not agree that some items are necessary, the Housing Authority is ultimately responsible for the condition of the complex, the health and safety of the residents and compliance with building codes, including current ADA regulations. The second priority of the Housing Authority is to preserve and extend the life of Rippling River for future residents, and that may mean inconveniencing current residents to do so. The Housing Authority was not interested in doing a low-cost "patch and paint" rehabilitation of the complex if there are serious structural/major building system issues that need to be resolved.

Jim Schiffner (Monterey County Building Department) said the County would make an effort to "be flexible" in the enforcement of ADA compliance in the rehabilitation of the complex, but that the ADA codes leave little room for interpretation- and are generally quite specific on what is required for compliance.

Several items on the list of proposed improvements-and resident comments whether or not these improvements were necessary or how they could be done at a lower cost, were then discussed in some detail, including utility meters in the units, the obsolescence of the emergency call box system, and ADA improvements to ramps located throughout the complex.

Ms. Warren stated the Housing Authority would like to conduct a survey of all the residents at Rippling River on what housing conditions/structural issues each resident thinks should have priority in the rehabilitation. Ms. Warren reported that the Housing Authority will develop a "survey questionnaire" for review at the next meeting of the Focus Group before it is sent out to the residents.

After discussion of several housing condition/structural issues, Ms. Warren recommended the goal of the Focus Group, the architect, and the Housing Authority should be to come up with a new list of necessary improvements that we all could agree on. The resident survey will be useful for this goal, as well as review of current ADA regulations.

Because Ms. Warren had to leave the meeting before the unit/site inspection- the schedule of future meetings of the Focus Group was reviewed and approved as follows: Next meeting: December 5^th, following meetings- December 19^th, and then January 9^th, 2003.

The Focus Group and Housing Authority Staff then conducted a tour of the complex that included the back parking lot, and three different units with different layouts in three different buildings. Throughout this tour, Mr. Ruhnke pointed out deficiencies in code compliance, particularly ADA code compliance, and evidence of structural problems that he thought posed threats to the safety of current residents.

After the inspection, resident Phillip Childress asked Henry Ruhnke for a summary report on what the group saw and what priorities Mr. Ruhnke, as the project architect, thought should be addressed in the rehabilitation project. This summary report was as follows:

1. The threat of structural failure, due to water damage and dry rot, of the balconies of nearly all the buildings. One such balcony has already failed (structurally), and there reason to believe the causes for this failure are prevalent throughout the complex.
2. Pursuant to the ADA code, the replacement of balconies will trigger the need for compliance with current ADA codes between the parking lot and the project, which means that, by law, the parking lot and all exterior ramps leading to the improved buildings, including the front doors to the units, must be brought into compliance with ADA codes.
3. If a building is "shut down" for residency to replace balconies, it makes sense (as a minimum in the interior unit improvements) to replace and individually meter the heating systems (to reduce operation costs of the complex) and emergency call systems, because of the high cost and inconvenience of temporary relocation that will be required by the balcony work.
4. Roof Replacement and Paint- while not the highest priority, these items need to be done.

Mr. Ruhnke explained that certain work triggers the need for ADA compliance, and, at certain points in the rehabilitation of units, the need to remodel a certain percentage of units for full ADA wheelchair accessibility and or/adaptability is triggered. Mr. Ruhnke suggested the "seismic upgrades" discussed in the "Damage Survey report" can probably be excluded from the proposed project at this time.

Discussion ensued about the need for a carefully designed "relocation plan" for the residents, as well as the Focus Group review of this relocation plan before any rehabilitation project is initiated, and the possible funding sources for the project. Funding for the rehabilitation project was discussed as some length, and well as the need for local contributions to raise sufficient funds for the project. Resident Philip Childress specifically asked for information on the recently passed "Prop. 46" housing funding allocated for ADA modifications to low-income, rental housing.

The meeting ended with a review of next steps as follows; the need to review the "survey questionnaire" at the next meeting, and the need for information about grant funding, and they need to come up with a scope of work for the project that all parties agreed to.