►
Description
Minneapolis Community Development & Regulatory Services Committee Meeting
A
You
good
afternoon
welcome
to
the
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
community
development
and
regulatory
Services
Committee
for
today,
December
12th
I've
been
joined
by
council
members,
Frye
Quincy
and
Connor,
which
is
a
quorum
of
the
committee.
There
are
a
number
of
consent
agenda
items
on
our
agenda
today:
items
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
and
10
and
11
I
will
note
that
a
number
of
them
are
contracts
and
modifications
to
existing
contracts.
I
also
have
a
an
amendment
on
item
number
5,
which
is
substituting
the
report
in
front
of
you
by
mr.
Wilson.
A
Given
the
timing
and
the
end
of
the
year,
we're
just
trying
to
get
as
many
of
these
licenses
approved
as
possible
prior
to
the
larger
brake
and
then
normal.
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
move
the
amended
agenda
for
item
number
5
as
well
as
items
six
through
11
as
submitted
by
staff,
are
there
any
questions
or
comments
on
those
items,
seeing
none
all
in
favor
of
the
chairs
motion
signify
by
saying
aye
any
opposed
those
items
are
approved.
B
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
This
is
a
request
for
ten
million
dollars
in
multifamily
housing
revenue,
entitlement,
bonds
for
all
great
home
homes.
All
bright
town
homes
is
requesting
housing
revenue,
bonds
for
the
refinance
and
renovation
of
an
89
unit,
rental
town
home
complex
located
at
30
51
Pillsbury
Avenue.
South
the
unit
mix
consists
of
10
one-bedroom
and
79
two-bedroom
units
that
serves
both
individuals
and
families.
The
current
resident
population
is
95%
Somali.
The
project
was
originally
built
in
1977
and
CH.
B
Dc
has
owned
the
property
since
2000
and
completed
major
renovations
in
2001
and
2005.
Currently
there
are
critical
physical
needs
that
cost
more
than
the
project
has
in
reserves
HDC
in
partnership
with
its
syndicator
Wells
Fargo.
Under
the
new
Albright
limited
partnership
plans
to
address
these
critical
physical
needs
to
preserve
the
property
for
the
long
term.
The
scope
of
work
includes
updating,
building
systems,
replacing
the
flat
roofs,
adding
landscaping
and
addressing
site
drainage,
replacing
old
unit
and
common
area
fixtures
and
finishes
the
longest
time
period.
B
Tenants
will
be
temporarily
relocated
as
five
days
and
the
developer
will
follow
the
federal,
uniform
relocation
Act
relocation
guidelines,
no
tenants
will
be
on
involuntarily
displaced.
All
of
the
units
will
be
affordable
to
persons
or
families
with
household
incomes
at
or
below
60%
of
the
area
median
income.
Additionally,
all
of
the
units
are
covered
under
a
project-based
Section
eight
HAP
contract,
which
makes
the
unit's
affordable
to
persons
and
families
with
household
incomes
at
or
below
30
percent.
Ami,
the
total
development
cost
of
the
project
is
20
million.
B
A
There
any
questions
for
staff
on
item
number
one
seeing
none
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
item
number,
one
which
is
preliminary
and
final
approval
of
ten
million
dollars
in
tax
exempt
multi-family
housing
revenue
bonds
for
all
bright
townhomes.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
speak
to
this
issue?
Anyone
anyone
seeing
none
will
close
the
public
hearing,
councilmember
Quincy
thank.
A
A
D
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
public
hearing
is
a
request
to
consider
final
bond
approval
of
twenty
point:
three
million
of
multifamily
housing
entitlement
bonds
for
the
Riverside
homes,
project
Riverside
homes
is
a
scattered
site,
affordable
housing
project
consisting
of
191
rental
units
across
74
buildings,
scattered
throughout
Cedar,
Riverside
neighborhood
of
wards,
2
and
6.
The
properties
are
a
mix
of
townhomes,
single-family
and
multiplex
buildings.
D
103
of
the
units
are
subject
to
project
section:
8
contract
with
an
additional
55
units
presently
occupied
by
households,
usual
utilizing,
portable
section,
8
vouchers.
These
buildings
will
be
owned
by
Riverside
homes,
to
limited
partnership
and
will
remain
Co
owned
and
operated
by
subsidiaries
of
Ch,
DC
and
West
Bank
CDC.
The
underlying
land
is
owned
by
the
city
of
Minneapolis
and
leased
to
the
current
owner
under
an
amended
and
restated
property.
Lease
dated
September
15th
1999.
D
This
project
will
be
back
before
this
committee
in
2018
to
consider
authorization
of
a
new
lease
to
the
newly
formed
limited
partnership.
Riverside
homes
is
the
combination
of
five
projects
originally
financed
in
the
1980s
as
part
of
the
Cedar
Riverside
urban
renewal
program.
The
buildings
range
in
age
from
30
to
120
years.
The
primary
goal
of
the
currently
proposed
project
is
to
secure
funds
for
renovation
of
the
properties
for
the
long
term,
preservation
of
the
existing,
affordable
housing.
D
All
191
of
the
units
will
be
contractually
restricted
to
remain
affordable
at
60%
of
area
median
income
for
at
least
the
next
30
years.
Proceeds
from
the
sale
of
the
bonds,
as
well
as
tax
credit
at
investor
equity
and
the
additional
project
funds
will
be
used
to
acquire
and
rehabilitate
the
project.
The
total
development
cost
of
the
project
will
be
42
point
four
million.
This
transaction
will
generate
approximately
16
million
for
repairs
and
improvements.
Rehab
efforts
will
emphasize
health
and
safety
improvements,
increasing
sustainability
and
improving
overall
livability.
D
The
scope
of
work
will
emphasize
new
exteriors
roofs
windows,
entry
door,
replacement,
foundation,
repairs
and
grading
and
drainage
work,
interior
efforts
will
emphasize
HVAC
improvements
and
electrical
and
plumbing
upgrades
kitchen
and
bathroom
upgrades
will
occur
on
approximately
50
of
the
units
with
smoke
and
CO
detectors
replaced
across
all
units.
No
existing
tenants
will
be
displaced
and
the
project
will
adhere
to
federal,
uniform
relocation
requirements.
In
addition
to
meeting
all
affirmative
action,
hiring
requirements,
West
Bank
CDC
will
sponsor
a
modest
neighborhood
jobs
program
in
partnership
with
both
the
general
contractor
and
Academy.
A
E
A
F
You,
madam
chair,
we
have
a
application
for
Nancy
liquor
license
with
Sunday
sales,
Class
B
by
parallel
LLC
doing
businesses
parallel.
They
are
locating
a
new
facility
at
145
Holden
Street
north
in
Minneapolis,
which
is
about
a
block
west
of
the
main
farmers
market.
This
is
in
the
North
Loop
neighborhood
in
Ward
5.
This
will
be
a
restaurant
and
entertainment
venue
with
seating
for
325
persons
inside
we'll
have
general
operating
hours
from
6:30
a.m.
to
2:00
a.m.
daily
parallel
LLC.
As
a
Minnesota
company
formed
in
2017,
the
owners
are
Jackson,
Schwarz
and
Joseph
limpert.
F
F
The
Class
B
license
will
allow
live
performance
and
dancing
etc.
Associated
with
the
Restaurant
&
Events
Center,
a
public
hearing
is
required.
We
notified
all
property
owners
and
residents
within
600
feet
of
this
premises.
We
also
notified
the
North
Loop
neighborhood
association,
the
Harrison
Neighborhood
Association,
the
downtown
neighborhood
association,
the
West
Market
Business
Association,
and
the
warehouse
district
business
association.
We
Seve
no
responses
for
or
against
the
application.
We
find
that
it
meets
all
of
our
requirements
and
recommend
that
the
application
be
approved
are.
A
G
G
Schwartz
I'm
gonna
be
the
owner
operator.
We
bought
the
building
in
late
2016
and
have
been
renovating
it.
This
is
kind
of
the
final
portion
that
we'll
be
working
on,
so
we
operate
some
of
our
other
businesses.
Currently
in
the
building.
We
really
look
to
be
a
positive
catalyst
in
the
neighborhood.
You
know
creating
a
place
for
activity
and
that's
open
to
the
public.
G
Like
was
stated,
we
will
have
an
event
space
that
we
will
use
for
weddings,
corporate
events
and
nonprofit
fundraisers,
and
the
establishment
will
really
act
as
kind
of
a
cafe
during
the
day,
providing
a
lunch
spot
for
the
Glenwood
corridor
and
the
commercial
businesses.
There
then
kind
of
happy
hour
for
business
meetings
and
a
place
for
people
to
connect.
We
estimate
to
create
nine
full-time
jobs,
starting
in
January
and
six
more
part-time
jobs
as
we
get
the
event
space
kind
of
up
and
running
and
a
full
capacity.
A
You
for
your
testimony
and
thank
you
for
being
here
today.
Is
there
anyone
else
here
to
speak
to
this
issue,
anyone
anyone
seeing
none
I'll
close
the
public
hearing,
I'm
going
to
move
approval
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
where
this
is
because
you
can't
place
it.
It's
essentially
next
to
Bryn
Glass
on
one
side
and
now
Hennis
art
on
the
other.
The
building
looks
amazing.
You
could
not
have
done
a
better
job,
it's
really
a
leap
of
faith.
A
What
you
guys
are
doing
in
this
location
and
I
know
that
you
will
be
able
to
encourage
others
to
make
this
kind
of
investment.
This
isn't
a
shadow
of
the
farmers
market
across
the
street,
from
our
curry
maintenance
facility
and
Lee's
liquor
lounge,
as
well
as
a
lot
of
supportive
housing
in
the
immediate
area.
But
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
come
in
from
Bryn
Mawr
Golden,
Valley
I
am
who
really
would
love
to
have
something
that
they
can
go
to
I'm,
just
really
excited
for
you
guys
it's
great
to
meet
you
thank.
A
F
F
They
currently
operate
at
311,
East
Lake
Street,
and
have
an
on
sale.
Wine
and
strong
beer
license
for
the
Class
E
license,
and
they
would
like
to
upgrade
that
license
to
a
full
on
sale,
liquor
license
with
Class
B
entertainment
and
also
seek
a
special
late-night
food
license
which
will
allow
them
to
be
open,
till
4:00
a.m.
for
food
service.
Only
this
is
in
the
central
neighborhood
in
Ward
9
at
zone
c1.
They
have
interior
seating
for
53
persons.
They
currently
have
our
operating
hours
from
9
a.m.
to
2
a.m.
F
daily,
and
they
would
like
to
increase
that
to
2
a.m.
to
4
a.m.
for
food
service.
Only
they
do
provide
food
service
all
hours
that
they
are
open.
Pedro,
Fuentes
Clavell
is
the
president
and
100%
owner.
He
operates
taqueria
el
Qi
law
at
this
current
location.
With
that
on,
sell
wine
license.
He
has
been
in
operation
there
since
2016
March.
He
also
operates
Don
kilo,
restaurant
at
417,
East
Lake
and
has
been
there
since
2005
public
hearing
is
required
for
this
upgrade
and
for
the
late-night
food
license.
F
F
A
I
A
good
operator,
the
silly
no
sentences,
there's
no
situations
week
ago,
they
passed
a
literary
examination.
They
passed
the
test.
I
know
that
there
was
one
complaint
for,
but
we
question
whether
that
complaint
is
valid
or
not,
because
first
of
all,
the
person
died
in
April
person
with
the
same
name
and
he's
not
out
pretty
tough
emails
anymore,
so
I
just
throw
that
out.
A
A
Number
four:
is
we
move
for
approval,
further
comments
or
questions,
seeing
none
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
any
opposed.
That
item
is
approved.
We'll
then
move
on
to
our
to
discussion
items
starting
with
item
number
12,
miss
Crowther,
I'm.
Sorry,
you
had
to
wait
at
the
last
meeting.
We
just
think
this
is
a
big
topic
and
wanted
to
get
a
briefing
so
I
appreciate
you
being
here
today.
Thank.
J
You,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
each
year,
the
city
of
Minneapolis
receives
authority
to
issue
taxes
and
housing
revenue
bonds
in
support
of
its
affordable
housing
programs.
The
city
expects
to
have
18
million
plus
an
alligator
at
the
end
of
2017.
This
is
a
request
for
passage
of
a
resolution
authorizing
execution
of
a
transfer
agreement
to
transfer
the
remaining
2017
authority
to
st.
Paul
planning
and
economic
development
for
an
equal
amount
of
allocation
to
received
back
to
us
in
2018.
J
Proposed
changes
related
to
federal
tax
reform
would
be
catastrophic
for
affordable
housing,
namely
the
housing
tax
reform
bill,
which
is
fully
passed
in
the
house.
It
eliminates
private
activity
bonding
as
well
as
new
market
tax
credits
and
and
historic
rehabilitation,
tax
credits,
although
the
later
a
subject
to
transition
rules
that
will
allow
for
some
project
financing.
These
provisions
are
not
in
the
Senate
bill.
Differences
between
the
two
bills
are
currently
being
worked
out
in
a
conference
committee
today,
maybe
the
last
day
of
their
negotiations.
J
Uncertainty
as
to
the
future
of
tax
exempt
bonding
has
led
us
in
jurisdictions
all
across
the
country
to
reevaluate
the
projects
in
our
bond
pipeline,
originally
scheduled
to
close
in
2018.
Today
we
approve
three
bond
deals
that
are
moving
forward:
east
towne
albright
and
riverside
to
show
just
what
the
impact
will
be.
We
don't
secure
these
closings
early.
Like
other
bond
issues
across
the
country.
We
focused
on
projects
that
work
shovel-ready,
meaning
they
have
secured.
The
funding
necessary
to
close
projects
with
soft
debt
gaps
were
eliminated
from
our
consideration.
J
It
is
important
for
us
to
maintain
that
underwriting
criteria,
because,
while
the
fate
of
the
tax-exempt
exemption
for
private
activities,
bonds
is
not
likely
to
be
known
by
the
end
of
the
year,
if
we
issue
bonds
and
improper
amounts
with
the
projects
that
aren't
feasible,
our
2018
allocation
will
be
at
risk
if
the
bond
tax
exemption
survives
after
these
three
projects,
we
have
a
little
over
18
million
of
bond
cap
at
risk
of
loss.
Rather
than
lose
this
capacity.
We
are
currently
proposing
to
transfer
this
amount
to
st.
J
Paul
planning
and
economic
development
for
them
to
finalize
a
project
that
is
also
shovel-ready
by
the
end
of
the
year.
They
will
return
that
full
amount
to
us
in
2018.
If
the
bond
program
does
survive,
it
is
important
that
we
use
all
available,
reduce
resources
to
support,
affordable
housing
developments
in
the
region
if
signed
into
law.
This
tax
reform
bill
would
eliminate
all
private
activity
issuance
effective,
January,
the
first
2018
with
no
grandfathering,
delayed
action
or
slow
implementation.
A
A
That's
kind
of
like
a
private
negotiation,
that's
right,
and
so
this
is
one
of
many
issues
outstanding
within
the
tax
bill
that
we
have
to
recognize
could
completely
change
the
way
we
fund,
affordable
housing,
not
just
us,
but
everyone
around
the
whole
country,
and
so
we
don't
have
any
way
of
guessing
how
this
is
going
to
turn
out.
No.
J
A
The
action
in
front
of
us
is
actually
to
transfer
our
authority
over
to
st.
Paul
because
they
can
use
it
for
a
shovel-ready
project.
Should
we
have
entitlements
next
year.
They
would
transfer
the
funding
back
to
us
and
we
just
continue
on
as
we
have
been
right,
correct.
Are
there
other
questions
or
comments
from
Miss
Crowther,
councilmember
Quincy?
Thank.
C
You,
madam
chair,
just
wanted
to.
Obviously
this
is
part
of
our
legislative
agenda.
This
is
something
we
oppose
at
the
national
level,
but
this
is
a
very
prudent
thing
for
us
to
do.
We
don't
want
to
leave
seventeen
million
dollars
sitting
alone,
not
being
able
to
be
allocated
so
I
appreciate
st.
Paul's
willingness
to
take
those
those
bond
issuance
authority
on
and
they
have
a
project.
That's
ready
to
go
and
I'm
very
excited
to
hear
that
and
let's
keep
our
fingers
crossed
through
the
end
of
the
year.
Further.
A
K
K
So
the
proposal
the
proposed
changes
were
bringing
forward
today
are
really
the
summary
of
a
lot
policy
changes
that
have
had
a
lot
of
discussion
over
the
last
couple
of
years.
Our
intention
was
not
to
bring
forward
anything
that
would
really
be
a
new
policy
that
hasn't
been
pretty
thoroughly
discussed.
So
the
unified
housing
policy
will
be
further
reviewed
as
part
of
the
work
in
the
Comprehensive
Plan
Update
in
2018.
So
this
is
not
intended
to
encompass
all
potential
or
good
idea
changes
to
the
housing
policy.
K
It's
really
intended
to
again
capture
what
what
we
know
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
and
I
think
frankly,
there's
an
expectation
that
some
of
this
stuff
is
already
in
our
policy,
so
the
the
changes
that
were
originally
in
your
packet,
there
have
been
some
changes
to
those
and
you
should
have
those
in
front
of
you.
We
released
these
proposed
changes
for
public
comment
on
November
14th
and
there
are
two
comments
included
in
your
packet
earlier.
K
We've
sent
in
the
last
couple
of
days
received
11
additional
comments
and
you
should
have
those
before
you
as
well.
So
there's
five
additional
proposed
changes.
I'll
just
go
through
them
briefly
and
be
happy
to
take
questions.
The
first
is
to
clarify
that
the
affordability
requirements
of
the
policy
apply
not
only
to
residential
projects
of
10
or
more
units
that
receive
any
kind
of
city
financial
assistance,
but
also
to
projects
that
are
developed
on
city-owned
property.
K
This
proposed
amendment
would
support
city,
affordable
housing
goals
and
codify
current
practice
of
prioritizing
development
proposals
that
include
affordable
housing.
Originally,
staff
proposed
to
exempt
city-owned
property
in
minority
or
poverty
concentrated
areas
from
this
requirement.
However,
we
have
received
several
comments,
both
in
writing
as
well
as
a
lot
of
verbal
comments
that
have
come
in,
including
from
the
north
side,
funders
group
and
others
opposing
this
exemption,
citing
concern
about
rapidly
changing
housing
markets
and
the
potential
for
a
gentrification
and
involuntary
displacement.
K
In
response
to
these
concerns,
staff
recommends
that
the
policy
not
uniformly
exempt
poverty
and
minority
concentrated
areas
from
the
policy
requirements,
but
instead
state
that
the
City
Council
may
grant
a
waiver
to
this
policy
to
allow
for
market
rate
housing
development
in
areas
where
none
has
occurred
in
the
previous
three
years.
The
council
can
then
consider
market
conditions
at
the
time
that
staff
is
proposing
to
issue
a
request
for
development
proposals
for
a
particular
site.
K
The
second
proposed
change
and
I'm
wrong.
There's
four,
not
five.
The
second
proposed
change
is
to
clarify
that
unless
there,
the
City
Council
adopts
specific
program
criteria
that
limits
affordability
or
States
a
different
affordability
period,
that
affordability
period
will
be
30
years
at
least
30
years.
The
third
proposed
change
is
as
a
change
in
the
affordability
requirement
for
ownership
projects.
K
Currently,
the
policy
reads
that
whenever
their
city
assistance,
city,
financial
assistance,
that
20%
of
the
units
will
be
affordable
to
households
with
incomes
at
or
below,
60
percent
of
the
area
median
income-
and
that
applies
to
both
rental
housing,
as
well
as
ownership
housing,
the
last
to
approximately
two
decades
that
this
policy
has
been
in
place.
It
hasn't
produced
in
the
affordable
ownership,
housing
and
staff
believes
that
there
was
a
couple
of
reasons
for
that.
K
One
is
that
we
just
haven't
seen
a
lot
of
ownership,
multi
family
ownership
activity
in
the
city
and
secondly,
we
don't
think
that
20%
of
the
units
affordable
at
60%
ami
is
achievable
with
feasibility.
So
we
we
think
that
this
proposed
change
of
requiring
for
ownership
project
10%
of
the
unit's
affordable
to
households
at
or
below
80%
of
the
area
median
income.
We
think
that
that
is,
will
position
the
city
to
take
advantage
of
or
to
create
some
affordability
in
market
rate
development
that
may
be
coming
forward.
On
the
ownership
side.
K
We
have
seen
that
there
is
renewed
interest
in
in
condo
development
and
were
hopeful
that,
by
changing
the
requirement
to
be
10%
at
80%
ami
that
we
actually
will
be
able
to
produce
some
affordable
units
this
way
and
also
combined
with
the
requirement
that
there
would
be
a
thirty-year
affordability
requirement
minimally
or
longer,
if
possible,
on
these
units.
So
that
would
mean
that
it
wouldn't
just
be
the
first
owner
that
would
benefit
from
the
support
ability.
It
would
be
all
subsequent
by
buyers
for
at
least
30
years
and
then.
K
Finally,
the
policy
didn't
mention
a
goal
of
preserving
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing,
and
this
committee
in
particular,
and
the
the
council
has
expressed
very
strong
interest
in
preserving
our
naturally-occurring,
affordable
housing.
So
we're
proposing
that
one
state
that
in
the
policy
so
I'd
be
happy
to
take
any
questions,
are.
L
K
K
A
L
A
A
A
L
But
you
know
if
it
wasn't
residential
or
anything
else,
then
it
there
wouldn't
be
a
reform
component
requirement.
Okay,
all
right
so
now,
I
understand
that.
So
there's
no
change,
in
other
words,
made
to
the
subsidy
allowed
for
a
market
rate
in
a
lower
income.
Neighborhood
that
hasn't
received
development.
K
We
did
receive
comments
suggesting
that
we
make
that
change
and
I
I
would
put
that
in
the
category
of
a
policy
issue
that
requires
more
discussion.
We
haven't
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
that.
We
know
that
there's
some
interest
that
we've
received
in
making
that
policy
change,
but
there's
also
I
think
a
lot
of
concern
that's
raised
with
making
that
so
I
I
think
make.
L
Just
kind
of
stay
for
the
record.
My
position
on
I
know:
there's
the
variance
various
points
of
views
on
the
topic.
I
mean
I,
am
very
open
to
using
different
subsidies,
and
even
even
Tiff's,
for
instance,
to
do
an
affordable
based
project,
especially
in
a
middle
or
an
upper
income.
Neighborhood
I
would
also
be
open
to
using
it
to
trigger
investment
and
market
rate
in
neighborhoods
that
are
do
not
traditionally
have
that
ability.
So
that's
is
where
I
am
NOT.
Item
number
two
affordability
for
a
period
of
30
years,
that's
pretty
straightforward.
L
It
does
okay
and
then
number
three
so
number
three
there
actually
is
a
project
that
I
know
you're,
aware
of
that
we're
kind
of
working
through
the
logistics
on
right.
Now,
that
is
an
owner-occupied
project
that
we
would
like
to
see
an
affordable
component.
I
know:
there's
been
discussions
about
how
deeply
affordable
on
how
many
units
would
it
would
be,
and
and
obviously
in
some
of
these
owner-occupied
projects,
it
costs
more
per
unit
to
subsidize
than
just
your
typical
rental
and
I'm.
Okay.
L
Actually,
with
that
additional
cost,
you
know
the
the
question
that
I
have
so
so
the
the
requirement
is
that
it
is
at
least
I
am
assuming.
When
you
say
it's
a
it's
a
it's
at
least
10
percent
of
the
units
at
80%
of
ami
right,
so
you
could
go
deeper.
Grant
okay
and
it's
my
understanding
that
the
ten
percent
of
units
at
80
percent
of
ami
is
sort
of
the
direction.
The
one
property
that
we're
talking
about
or
that
I'm
talking
about
is
going
right
now.
L
A
K
L
K
Of
likes
Community
Land,
Trust,
I'm
Jeff
Washburn
here,
and
they
have
a
tremendous
track
record
of
really
serving
deeper
affordability
and
for
longer
than
30
years.
That
would
also
be
a
model
that
could
create
the
perpetual
affordability
as
well.
So
we
will
encourage
the
pay.
I
mean
this.
We
see
this
is
the
the
baseline.
L
K
A
E
Could
you
then
just
specifically
talk
about
the
point
here
that
they
raised
regarding
the
exemption
for
projects
located
in
essentially
racially
concentrated
areas
of
poverty,
which
is
I,
think
something
that
comes
when
more
Jacob
was
just
talking
about,
but
just
specifically
they're
referencing.
An
exemption
here
and
I
would
like
to
hear
your
response
to
their
comments.
I'm.
E
K
Chair
comes
from
econo,
the
you
should
have
you
had
an
original
version
in
your
original
packet
and
then
there's
a
redline
version
in
front
of
you,
and
the
redline
version
was
very
specifically
intended
to
address
that
comment.
It
wasn't
just
the
Harrison,
it
wasn't
just
members
of
the
Harrison
Neighborhood
Association
and
we
didn't
formally
receive
anything
from
the
Neighborhood
Association
that
they
voted
on,
but
we
did.
K
Staff
was
invited
by
them
to
to
have
a
discussion
with
them
about
the
proposed
policy
changes
which
we
did
earlier
this
week
and
several
members
that
participated
in
this
in
this
discussion
expressed
concern
and
one
of
them
followed
up
with
this
written
comment
expressed
concern
about
a
couple
of
things.
One
is
the
labeling
you
know
and
and
we
we
understand
that
concern
and
frankly,
I
think
staff.
K
We
agree
with
it
and
wanted
to
come
up
with
different
different
language
and
then
also
the
concern
which
was
raised
by
by
members
of
the
neighborhood
group,
as
well
as
others,
like
the
Northside
funders
groups
and
similar
email,
indicating
that
that
area's
city-owned
property
in
areas
that
we
define
as
being
minority
or
poverty
concentrated
shouldn't
just
uniformly
be
exempt
from
the
affordable
housing
requirements.
So
our
proposed,
we
responded.
K
Staff
responded
by
recommending
to
you
that
we
take
away
that
exemption
and
that
we
do
apply
the
requirement
to
all
properties
and
then
again
indicate
that
there
may
be
some
areas
that
haven't
had
market
rate
development.
There
may
be
very
strong
development
objectives
that
most
people
agree
with
that,
and
so
we're
recommending
that
the
policy
also
state
that
the
council
can
consider
those
cases
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
agree
to
a
waiver
for
to
support
the
development
of
market
rate
housing
on
again
on
city-owned
property
I
mean
it
can
go
market
rate.
K
E
So
if
from
sort
of
like
the
meta-narrative
perspective,
then
their
concerns
here
are
that
this
push
for
housing
choice,
takes
away
affordable,
housing
from
the
art
cap
zones
of
the
city
and
places
it
in
what
they
consider
more
desirable
neighborhoods.
What
is
what
is
your
analysis
of
that
in
terms
of
what
you're
presenting
today
and
their
concerns
for
this
sure.
K
Councilmember
or
madam
chair
comes
from
Burke
no
I,
and
this
is
really
a
question
that
I
would
just
pose
back
to
you
as
the
policymakers.
We
staff
are
under
the
very
strong
impression
that
the
policy
direction
is
to
create
mixed
income
housing
in
neighborhoods
throughout
the
city.
So
you
know
how
resources
are
allocated
really.
Is
a
question
for
policy
makers,
we're
recommending
that
you
know
that
we
formally
have
the
direction
to
do.
A
Is
really
good?
Essentially,
what
they're
saying
is
we're
worried
that
this
light
rail
line
is
going
to
come
through
and
then
everything
is
going
to
be
market
rate
and
there
won't
be
affordability
mixed
into
it.
So
it's
the
opposite
of
what
a
lot
of
neighborhoods
would
be
arguing
which
would
be
go
ahead
and
gentrify
and
so
I
think
having
a
taking
their
advice,
they
can
also
came
and
talked
to
us
in
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
with
with
regard
to
the
station
area
plan
for
van
white,
mm-hmm
and
I.
A
Think
it's
a
very
honorable
position
and
this
allows
for
flexibility.
I
mean
basically
it's.
What
we're
saying
is
we're
not
sure
we
want
to
continue
to
concentrate
poverty
and
what
they're
saying
is
housing
is
housing,
and
these
are
our
neighbors
and
we
don't
want
them
to
be
kicked
out
and
I
agree
with
that.
A
Completely
and
I
think
that
they're
on
to
something
where
they're
able
to
understand
the
slow
growth
in
the
neighborhood-
and
they
don't
want
to
see
gigantic
change
in
any
direction-
is
the
feeling
I
get
to
the
waiver
process
will
allow
them
to
look
at
projects
individually.
As
a
neighborhood
and
respond
back
to
us
about
what
they
think
about
them,
moving,
what
work?
A
E
I
mean
yeah
pushing
pushing
for
mixed
incomes.
You
know
in
mixed
income
neighborhoods
in
every
neighborhood
of
the
city,
inherently
means
displacement
or
some
poor
people
and
low-income
residents,
and
so
for
me,
this
discussion
is
a
little
bit
more
nuanced
and
I
understand.
What's
here
today,
I
understand
what
we're
doing
right
now:
I
just
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
the
future
impact
of
these
discussions.
A
I
would
say
the
Harrison
folks
agree
with
you,
which
is
why
they
suggested
this.
They
don't
want
their
neighborhood
broken
up
into
one
side
near
the
light
rail
station,
where
everything
is
higher-end
and
then
everybody
else.
That's
why
they're
bringing
this
up-
and
this
did
have
a
fairly
significant
review
process.
This
was
a
45-day
review
correct.
It
was
30
days
30-day
review
and
if
two
came
up
and
two
of
my
neighborhood
meetings
so
I
know,
a
lot
of
people
are
aware
of
this.
A
This
was
supposed
to
be
a
change
just
simply
associated
with
our
section
8
policy,
and
then
staff
decided
to
go
ahead
and
strengthen
some
of
the
areas,
as
you
saw
where
there
were
some
concerns
and
I
think
it's
become
a
stronger
policy
as
a
result
of
it.
So
I
think
the
neighbors
are
moving
they're
speaking
out
to
what
you're
saying,
also
further
comments
or
questions
with
regard
to
the
staff
recommendation.
A
Seeing
none
I'll
move
approval
of
the
staff
recommendation,
which
is
basically
a
substitute
submitted
by
our
housing
director,
which
is
what
it's
in
front
of
us.
The
substitute
report,
all
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
and
he
opposed
that
item
is
approved,
say
no
further
business
before
us.
We
are
adjourned.