►
From YouTube: December 4, 2019 Housing Policy & Development Committee
Description
Minneapolis Housing Policy & Development Committee Meeting
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
Afternoon
I'll
call
to
order
this
meeting
of
the
housing
policy
and
Development
Committee
I'm,
chair
of
the
committee
kam
Gordon
I'm,
joined
today
by
a
councilmember,
schraeder,
Ellison
and
Goodman
I
suspect
the
remaining
committee
members
will
be
showing
up
soon,
but
I
thought
we
could
get
started.
There's
eight
items
on
the
agenda.
A
Two
of
them
are
public
hearings
having
to
do
with
land
sales
and
then
there's
a
public
hearing
about
a
modification
on
a
housing
replacement,
tax,
increment
financing
plan,
and
then
we
have
a
few
consent
items,
and
then
we
have
one
discussion
item
at
the
end
on
the
unified
House
and
policy
amendments,
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
the
consent
agenda
here
that
includes
the
following.
The
first
is
confirming
Merrill
reappointments
to
the
minneapolis
public
housing
authority
for
three-year
terms.
The
fifth
item
on
the
agenda.
A
Our
second
consent
item
is
a
carry
forward
of
year:
2019
tax
exempt
housing
revenue
bonds.
The
next
item
is
a
transfer
of
redevelopment
contract
with
bluegolds
ventures
to
Great
Lakes
property
group,
and
this
is
for
the
property
at
7:56,
Jackson,
Street,
northeast
and
the
seventh
item.
Our
last
consent
item
is
accepting
a
bid
for
property
maintenance,
mowing
and
snow
removal,
and
actually
it's
more
than
one
councilmember
Goodman
did
you
want
to
pull
anything
off
or
a
comment?
I.
B
These
are
organizations
that
are
working
towards
helping
youth
and
people
of
color
people
coming
out
of
incarceration
towards
job
security,
and
so
that
means
that
almost
a
million
now
these
contracts
are
going
to
organizations
that
meet
our
workforce
and
living
wage
priority
so
peppered
throughout
our
entire
organization.
We
have
the
ability
to
make
changes
on
racial
equity,
just
based
on
what
contracts
go
and
I
can
just
point
to
those
two
and
the
incredible
work
that
they
do
and
I
would
guess
that
those
are
very
big
contracts
for
these
organizations
as
well.
A
A
C
Good
afternoon,
chair
Gordon
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
matthew,
ramadan,
cpad
senior
project
coordinator,
and
we
have
before
us
today.
One
land
sale
for
1337
newton
avenue,
north
the
sale
of
which
was
approved
through
the
minneapolis
home's
policies
for
the
program
were
established
by
the
City
Council
on
December
11,
2015
and
reconfirmed
on
February
10th.
2017
staff
recommends
the
sale
of
1337
Newton
Avenue
north
to
voting
for
its
appraised
value
of
20,000
subject
to
conditions.
C
Staff
further
recommends
approval
of
the
Lord
of
up
to
20,000
homebuyer
incentive
funds
to
VU
Dane
1337
Newton
Avenue
north
was
acquired
on
March
20
2007
from
the
Northside
residence
redevelopment
council,
also
known
as
Newark
for
$14,500.
The
staff
has
continuously
marketed
this
property
to
a
listserv
of
now
over
2,800
people.
This
is
the
only
application
received
through
many
episodes.
The
mini-episode
program
the
purchaser
intends
to
invest
340
thousand
to
be
the
owner
occupant
of
a
new
2300
finished
square
foot,
four-bedroom
three-bath
home
with
the
detached
two-car
garage,
see
pets.
C
Construction
management
staff
has
reviewed
the
plans
and
estimates
submitted
by
the
applicant
and
confirm
that
they
are
sufficient
to
meet
the
new
construction
standards
of
the
main
office
Hollins
program
and
just
a
short
aside.
This
is
one
of
the
houses
that
you
see
featured
oftentimes
in
the
Minneapolis
Homes
webpage,
and
so
this
is
one
that
we
a
model
that
we
really
like
in
the
neighborhood
really
likes.
C
Notification
was
provided
to
the
North
Side
resident
redevelopment
council
on
October
1st
2019,
and
the
newark
board
supports
this
proposal.
We
have
with
us
today
mr.
vu,
dang
and
Christina,
who
are
the
homebuyers,
buy
the
home
and
also
the
Builder
mr.
Daniel
Neil
are
present
today.
Are
you?
Are
there
any
questions
for
me?
I,
don't.
A
See
any
questions,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
report.
Okay.
This
is
a
public
hearing,
so
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
land
sale.
If
anybody
wants
to
get
up
and
speak
and
introduce
yourself,
that's
fine,
but
it's
it's
not
necessary,
but
we'd
love
to
hear
from
you.
We
want
to
come
up
to
the
podium
and
just
say
hello
and
some
of
your
hopes
and
dreams
for
the
property,
hello,
hi.
A
E
A
Much
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say
no.
That
motion
carries
and
now
we
have
our
second
item
and
this
is
a
whole
package
of
land
sales.
This
is
probably
the
biggest
action
that
will
take
about
home
ownership
and
so
I'm
excited
to
learn
more
here
and
welcome
mr.
canasa
to
make
a
presentation
Thank.
F
You
Kara
Gordon
members
of
the
committee.
As
he
said,
my
name
is
Kevin
kinase
and
I'm
here
today
with
action
items
for
the
Minneapolis
Holmes
Development
Assistance
Program.
The
program
itself
provides
funding
for
project
gap
and
affordability
gap
for
the
development
of
one
to
four
unit.
Housing
on
city-owned
vacant
lots
an
RFP
for
this
round,
which
is
round
four
of
the
program.
We
often
call
MHD
a
for
short,
was
conducted.
This
fall
and
a
combination
of
both
internal
staff
and
stakeholders
from
Minnesota,
Housing,
Twin,
Cities,
Land,
Bank
and
list
reviewed.
F
We
also
look
at
previously
experience
successfully
completing
city
funded
projects
as
part
of
the
program
and
financing
that
developers
are
able
to
bring
to
help
fund
the
developments,
as
well
as
the
designs
that
they're
proposing.
So
looking
at
things
like,
if
they're
proposing
to
do
five
or
more
bedrooms
since
larger
bedroom
properties
are
in
shortage
in
the
city
as
well
as,
if
they're
incorporating
additional
green
features
and
then
we're
also
looking
at
where
we
looked
at
the
impact
within
the
communities
where
the
developments
are
proposed.
F
So
the
program
itself
has
a
number
of
goals,
the
first
of
which
is
preserving
affordable,
homeownership
opportunities
throughout
Minneapolis.
So
homes
constructed
to
this
program
are
actually
the
most
affordable
new
construction
homes
within
the
city
of
Minneapolis
and
in
2018
Council
approved
an
increase
in
the
Florida
bill.
F
Assistance
to
help
us
ensure
or
try
to
prioritize
ensuring
that
homeowners
that
purchase
in
the
homes
are
at
or
below,
80
percent
of
area
median
income
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
homebuyers
also
have
the
opportunity
to
access
other
downpayment
assistance
programs
that
they
can
loin
or
layer
with
city
funds.
So
kind
of
looking
at
that,
that's
usually
up
to
about
$15,000
and
downpayment
assistance
outside
of
city
sources.
That
homebuyers
have
been
able
to
access
in
the
past.
F
The
second
goal
of
the
program
is
encouraging
new
housing
development
on
city-owned
vacant
lots.
So
this
is
our
second
round
of
funding
within
2019
the
round
for
funding
and
we're
proposing
to
fund
the
development
of
59
uses
units
of
housing.
So
for
2019
that
would
be
a
total
of
93
units
that
would
be
approved
for
funding
through
this
program
for
this
year,
which
is
about
four
times,
what's
typically
done
in
a
year.
F
So
it's
really
great
to
see
the
impact
that
that
has
and
then
the
third
goal
of
the
program
is
improving
equitable
outcomes
and
construction
contracting
and
homeownership.
So
we
had
11
developers
that
actually
applied
and
of
those
developers,
seven
are
black
indigenous
or
people
of
color,
owned
businesses
or
run
nonprofits,
and
then
two
of
them
are
also
women,
led
organizations
as
well.
F
In
addition
to
that,
we
also
have
three
developers
that
are
partnering
with
workforce
development
groups,
and
we
also
looked
at
how
the
developers,
demographics,
of
the
households
that
they've
served
in
the
past
are
and
new.
This
round.
We
looked
at
a
passive
housing
pilot,
so
that
was
incorporated
into
this
round
of
the
RFP,
which
is
a
partnership
with
office
of
sustainability,
where
they're,
providing
up
$280,000
and
as
part
of
that
process.
F
In
addition
to
the
passive
housing
study,
we're
also
undertaking
a
long
term
affordability
study.
So
the
goal
of
this
is
to
increase
the
rate
of
LTA
properties
that
are
developed
with
the
program
right
now.
It's
about
20%
of
the
homes
that
are
developed
as
part
of
that
process,
which
began
this
summer.
We've
conducted
for
community
engagement
sessions,
market
study
and
then
done
an
analysis
of
existing
models,
both
our
own
model
and
then
models
nationally
and
even
internationally,
that
have
been
able
to
preserve
long-term
affordability
through
those
models
will
have
draft
recommendations
here
in
early
2020.
F
F
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
proposed
recommendations
for
sailin
funding
and
then
I'll
take
some
questions,
so
we
had
11
developers
that
proposed
to
do
59
units,
so
the
first
developer,
mine
home
source
is
proposing
seven
single
family
homes,
Seva
Lakes,
Community,
Land
Trust,
is
proposing
to
long-term,
affordable
homes
and
Easter
masters
is
proposing
six
single
family
homes.
You
can
see
the
designs
on
the
presentation
of
some
of
their
properties
and
then
we
have
a
greater
metropolitan
Housing.
F
46
of
those
would
be
single-family,
homes,
5
would
be
duplexes
and
what
one
would
be
a
triplex
and
you
maybe
if
you
were
keeping
track
looking
at
me
and
saying
well,
those
numbers
don't
add
up,
but-
and
the
reason
for
that
is,
we
also
as
part
of
our
RFP,
did
a
second
RFP
per
our
missing
middle
pilot
program,
which
funds
the
development
of
for
the
20
or
3
to
20
unit
housing.
Developments
within
the
city,
Minneapolis
and
two
of
the
proposals
received
through
that
program
actually
meet
the
program.
A
I
have
a
question:
you
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
affordability
of
the
homes
and
the
history
of
that,
and
you
also
talked
about
recommendations
coming
up.
It
looked
like
most
of
those
recommendations
might
have
to
do
with
sustainability,
but
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
you'll
also
be
reviewing
affordability
levels
with
the
possibility
of
us,
maybe
focusing
more
on
more
affordable
homes.
Correct
yes,.
F
Chair
Gordon,
so
we
are
doing
the
passive
housing
study,
which
is
on
sustainability,
but
the
long-term
affordability
study
is
specifically
focused
on
preserving
the
homeownership
opportunities
for
lower
ami
households,
I'm
realizing
that
we're
in
a
market
where
homes
are
becoming
more
expensive
and
it's
becoming
more
challenging
for
those
households
to
attain
homeownership.
So
how
can
we
ensure
our
programming
continues
to
serve
households
kind
of
at
that
level
that
we've
traditionally
done,
which
is
about
that
60%
ami?
It's.
A
A
F
Chair
Gordon,
so
we've
seen
a
steady
increase
in
participation
from
developers
of
color
in
our
program.
Traditionally,
most
of
the
developers
that
participate
that
are
new
to
our
program
are
private
developers
and
developers
of
color.
So
we
we
have
seen
an
increase
over
our
program
and
part
of
that
has
been
through
our
programming.
E
A
I,
don't
see
any
other
questions.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
the
report
can
either
work
that
way,
introducing
the
rest
of
the
staff
who
helped
you
thank
you,
and
we,
because
it's
a
land,
sale,
we'll
be
having
a
public
hearing
on
this
and
I'd
like
to
open
the
public
hearing
and
see.
If
there's
anybody
here
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this.
G
Welcome
thanks
for
being
here
good
afternoon,
Kathy
Wetzel
myself
from
PR
G,
just
that
it
would
might
be
helpful
to
share
a
few
details
on
our
history
with
this
program
and
other
predecessors
to
this
program.
So,
if
awarded
I
wanted
you
all
to
know
that
your
investment
in
the
PRG
projects
leverages
over
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
Minnesota
housing
awards.
So
that's
a
good
thing
and
wanted
to
share
just
some
demographic
information
about
who's
purchased,
PRG
developed
homes
over
the
past
ten
years
and
who's
built
those
homes.
G
So
over
the
past
ten
years
about
a
hundred
and
ten
projects,
seventy
four
percent
have
been
purchased
by
households
of
color
I've
got
a
further
breakdown
by
immigrant
households
versus
us-born
households
and
race
and
ethnicity.
If
folks
are
interested
in
it,
but
I'm
the
contracting
side
similar
results,
there,
we've
awarded
fifteen
million
dollars
in
construction
contracts
in
fourteen
contracts
with
general
contractors
and
three
of
those
have
gone
to
wait.
Male
owned
companies
so
good
stuff
there
so
just
want
to
share
that.
A
A
H
We
are
great,
affordable
homes,
and
so
we
just
want
to
take
a
moment
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
consideration.
We're
both
born
and
raised
in
Minneapolis,
my
mother
bought
a
ppl
house
when
I
was
14
years
old
and
it
changed
my
life
and
our
lives,
and
so
housing
is
incredibly
important
to
me
personally
and
really
for
both
of
us
a
couple
of
things
we
wanted
to
highlight
about
green,
affordable
homes.
One
is
in
terms
of
affordability.
H
My
pilot
triplex
would
actually
allow
somebody
who
weld
me
just
say
a
couple
of
things
about
the
model
we
did.
Research
I
started
researching,
probably
about
four
or
five
years
ago
on
how
to
build
this
project
in
this
company
and
how
to
really
fulfill
the
most
critical
needs.
So
the
reason
it's
a
triplex
is
because
the
upstairs
is
a
full
four-bedroom
two-bathroom
flat,
and
then
the
downstairs
is
to
smaller
visitability
units
perfect
for
aging-in-place,
only
one
step
up,
two
bedroom
one
bath
or
hopefully,
no
steps
up
so
being
able
to
provide
that
kind
of
housing.
H
H
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
was
that
we
are
heavy
on
the
green
and
efficiency
energy
efficiency
side,
we're
building
with
panels,
and
we
have
an
a
very
exciting
partnership
with
EPS,
a
Midwestern
company
for
that
and
we're
also
sourcing
as
many
different
interior
suppliers,
as
we
can
like
mercury
mosaics
in
North,
Minneapolis,
bicycle
glass,
which
gets
recycled
glass
right
outside
right
from
the
st.
Paul
and
turns
it
into
some
gorgeous
lighting.
H
I
could
talk
interior
design
all
day,
but
just
wanted
to
stop
there
and
just
emphasize
that
we're
tremendously
excited
about
this
program,
a
family
who
buys
that
triplex.
If
they
lived
upstairs
and
rented
at
our
projected
rents
downstairs,
they
would
actually
be
able
to
own
this
entire
building
for
and
pay
about
600
a
month.
So
we're
tremendously
excited
about
the
potential
for
this
out
throughout
the
city.
D
A
Seeing
no
one
come
forward,
then
I'll
close,
the
public
hearing
and
I
will
move
this
forward
for
approval
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed,
say.
No.
That
motion
carries
then
we'll
move
on
to
our
third
item,
which
is
a
smaller
technical
item,
and
this
is
compared
to
that
last
one
right-
and
this
is
by
mr.
Panisse.
Yes,.
F
Thank
you
so
I'm
here
today,
with
a
request
for
approval
of
modification
number
three
of
the
housing
replacement
district
number.
One
I
wanted
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
background,
so
the
housing
replacement,
district
or
HRD
for
short,
is
a
tax,
increment
financing
district.
That's
authorized
by
special
legislation
from
the
state
legislature
back
in
1995.
Its
sole
purpose
is
for
the
acquisition
and
preparation
of
parcels
specifically
for
the
development
of
housing,
with
a
market
value
that
doesn't
exceed
150%
of
the
market,
value
of
single-family
housing
within
the
city.
F
The
TIF
districts
include
vacant
land,
vacant
housing
or
substandard
housing,
and
a
plan
to
authorize
the
expenditure
of
that
tax
increment
for
acquisition,
demolition
in
site
preparation
in
order
to
nacelle
the
parcels
for
the
development
of
new
or
rehabilitated
housing.
There
are
four
districts
in
the
city
Minneapolis
and
they
were
approved
by
City
Council
in
1996,
2003,
2009
and
then
most
recently,
just
this
year
in
2019.
The
second
third
and
fourth
districts
were
established.
F
After
the
time
limit
for
expanding
the
existing
existing
district
were
reached
and
as
the
special
legislation
was
amended
to
allow
us
to
have
number
of
parcels.
So
an
example
would
be
during
the
Minneapolis
2011
tornado.
There
was
an
increase
in
parcels
specifically
for
that.
It's
currently
projected
that
the
tax
increment
revenues
through
the
duration
of
HRD,
one
which
is
2022
well,
it's
seed.
The
plan
that's
currently
in
place
for
the
TIF
budget
established
by
modification
number
two,
and
so
this
modification,
which
is
number
three,
is
amending
that
plan
to
update
the
projected
revenues.
F
It
doesn't
change
anything
in
terms
of
the
objectives
or
activity
or
activities
were
undertaking
within
the
district.
It
just
simply
authorizes
the
city's
use
of
the
additional
anticipated
revenue
and
otherwise
that
revenue
would
be
returned
to
the
county
and,
with
that
I'd
be
happy
to
take
any
questions
about
the
housing
replacement.
District
modification
number
three
of
8:31
I.
A
Don't
see
any
questions
thanks
for
that
good
explanation.
Thank
you,
appreciate
it
and
keeping
an
eye
on
funding.
So
it's
not
going
over
to
the
county,
not
that
they
don't
do
good
stuff
too
I
see
no
questions.
Then
I'll
move
that
forward
for
approval
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye,
any
opposed,
say
no
motion
carries
and
now
we'll
move
on
to
our
last
item.
This
is
the
inclusionary
housing
policy
amendments
we'll
have
a
presentation,
I
guess
I
just
want
to.
A
A
Yes
and
that's
not
necessarily
critical,
but
to
make
things
a
little
bit
simpler,
we
also
printed
out
a
version
of
the
policy
as
if
the
staff
directions
had
taken
effect.
So
this
is
what
of
the
amended
policy
what
has
been
drafted
to
indicate
based
on
these
passive
just
so
it's
clearer
for
everybody
now
welcome
miss
Brennan.
Take
it
away
great.
I
I
The
requested
action
before
the
housing
policy
and
development
committee
today
is
approval
of
a
permanent
inclusionary
zoning
policy
that
will
replace
the
interim
inclusionary
zoning
policy
that
has
been
in
effect
since
January
1
of
2019.
This
request
includes
two
parts:
one
adoption
of
an
amended
and
restated
unified
housing
policy
to
include
inclusionary
zoning
requirements
and
second
approval
of
amendments
to
the
revenue
loss
offset
policy.
I
Tomorrow,
the
zoning
and
planning
committee
will
consider
approval
of
the
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance.
The
ordinance
establishes
that
site
plan
approval
of
residential
dwellings
of
twenty
or
more
units
will
be
conditioned
upon
compliance
with
the
inclusionary
zoning
requirements
of
the
unified
Housing
Policy.
If
both
committee,
if
both
committees
approve
respect
respective
requested
actions,
the
full
City
Council
will
consider
approval
of
the
ordinance
the
unified
housing
policy
and
revenue
loss.
Offset
policy
on
December
13th,
if
approved
by
the
full
City
Council,
the
inclusionary.
I
Zoning
ordinance
and
policy
will
become
effective
on
January
1
2020,
along
with
Minneapolis
2040
and
the
recently
approved
ordinance
authorizing
residential
units
with
up
to
three
units
on
properties
in
lower
density,
zoned
districts,
the
Planning
Commission
held
a
public
hearing
on
the
proposed
ordinance
on
December,
sorry
on
November
18th
channeis
other,
who
is
also
here.
Principal
city
planner,
presented
an
overview
of
the
ordinance
and
also
the
policy
recommendations
at
this
Planning
Commission
meeting
public
testimony
was
taken
at
that
meeting.
I
I
I
Many
stakeholders
have
contributed
many
hours
to
inform
this
policy
and
staff
believe
that
we
are
recommending
a
better
policy
because
of
their
involvement
and
are
grateful
for
it.
So
if
it
pleases,
the
chair
I'd
like
to
invite
Stephanie
raised
with
grounded
solutions
up
to
present
our
inclusionary
zoning
policy
recommendations.
J
You
it's
nice
to
be
back
chair,
Gordon
and
committee
members
when
I
was
last
in
front
of
you
in
October,
I
had
a
very
long
presentation
that
included
both
our
draft
policy
recommendations
for
inclusionary
housing,
as
well
as
a
long
description
of
the
rationale
behind
those
policy
recommendations
and
in
the
interest
of
time
today.
I
am
simply
going
to
review
the
recommendations
themselves
and
not
belabor
the
rationale.
However,
should
anyone
have
questions
about
the
reasons
behind
our
recommendations
feel
free
to
ask?
J
You
may
recall
the
council
adopted
a
revenue
loss,
offset
policy
last
spring
to
cover
use
of
tax,
increment
financing
and
we're
recommending
one
addition
to
that
policy,
which
is
as
if
the
city
determines
that
the
maximum
available
TIF
is
insufficient.
For
the
project
to
be
financially
feasible,
the
city
will
either
offer
additional
financial
assistance
or
reduce
the
zoning
requirement
for
the
non
assisted
option
to
a
feasible
level.
J
For
for
sale
projects,
we
are
recommending
a
phase-in
of
the
inclusionary
zoning
requirement,
so
we
would
start
with
ownership
projects
currently
being
exempt
from
the
inclusionary
zoning
requirements.
But
once
we
see
500
condo
projects
permitted
there'll,
be
a
quick
six-month
wait
period
and
then
an
initial
requirement
of
4%
of
units
affordable
80%
of
AMI
and
then
once
the
milestone
of
1,000
condo
units
permitted
has
been
hit
and
another
six
month
phase
in
period.
The
full
condo
requirement
of
8%
of
units
at
80%
of
ami
would
be,
in
effect.
J
We're
recommending
several
provisions
around
applicability
of
the
policy.
We
recommend
inclusionary
zoning
policy
apply
to
all
projects
of
20
units
or
more
that
projects
between
twenty
and
forty
nine
units
have
a
temporary
exemption
until
five
hundred
units
of
that
size
have
received
their
permits
and
then
a
six-month
phase
in
period
for
projects
from
20
to
99
units.
We
are
recommending
a
scaled
requirement
to
address
the
different
financial
feasibility
of
such
projects.
J
With
respect
to
student
housing,
we're
recommending
that
housing
owned
and
operated
by
or
on
behalf
of
a
college
or
university
be
exempt
from
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy,
but
that
privately
built
housing
primarily
intended
for
students
to
be
subject
to
the
policy
and
that
students
would
be
eligible
for
an
inclusionary
zoning
unit
if
they
meet
federal
eligibility.
Requirements
for
affordable
housing
and
I.
Understand
we'll
see
some
proposed
staff
directions
on
this
topic
in
a
moment.
J
Next
I
want
to
cover
compliance.
All
trend
around
the
solutions
is
recommending
three
alternative
compliance
options
for
developers.
In
addition
to
on-site
compliance,
the
first
is
n
in
Luffy
we're
recommending
the
in
Luffy
be
set
to
be
moderately
higher
than
the
affordability
gap,
which
is
the
difference
between
market
rate
rents
and
affordable
rents
for
a
project.
That
means
that
it
would
be
moderately
higher
than
the
cost
to
build
on-site.
J
J
We're
also
recommending
that
off-site
compliance
be
an
option
available,
and
the
provisions
here
would
start
kicking
in
in
June
1st
of
2020
off-site
compliance
would
be
allowed.
Within
a
half
mile
of
the
market
rate
development
project
developers
could
partner
with
an
affordable
housing
developer
for
those
off-site
units.
J
This
is
something
new
that
we
did
not
bring
to
you
in
October.
We're
now
recommending
that
preservation
and
rehabilitation
of
existing
unregulated,
affordable
housing,
also
known
as
naturally
occurring,
affordable,
housing
or
nowa
be
an
allowed
type
of
off-site
compliance
and
then
for
both
new
construction
and
preservation.
Deals
that
off-site
at
least
the
same
level
of
public
benefit
must
be
provided
as
on-site.
J
Similarly,
for
both
new
construction
and
preservation
deals,
the
market
rate
developers
must
make
a
meaningful
contribution
to
the
affordable
housing
project.
Beyond
what
would
already
be
bought
to
an
affordable
housing
project
through
sort
of
the
traditional,
affordable
housing
finance
like
tax
credits,
affordable
units
should
be
built
and
ready
for
occupancy
concurrently
with
or
prior
to
market
rate
units
or
the
developer
can
provide
a
guarantee
of
the
amount
of
the
ambu
fee
that
they
would
have
had
to
pay.
J
The
final
compliance
alternative
or
recommending
is
the
opportunity
to
donate
land.
This
also
would
begin
starting
June
1st
of
next
year
and
donated
land
must
have
an
appraised
value
greater
than
or
equal
to
what
the
developer
would
have
had
to
pay
as
an
in
lieu
fee.
If
the
appraised
value
is
less,
the
developer
can
make
up
the
difference
in
a
cash
fee
also
that
land
be
located
an
area
with
a
high
need
for
sites
for
affordable
housing
and
the
land
be
developable
for
affordable
housing,
for
example,
zoned
as
residential.
J
We
have
a
very
small
number
of
recommended
exemptions
to
the
policy.
One
I
already
mentioned
housing
owned
and
operated
by
err
on
behalf
of
a
college
or
university,
also
affordable
housing
projects
that
use
certain
financing
sources
and
provide
at
least
20%
of
units
affordable
at
60%,
ami
and,
finally,
that
the
council
shall
have
the
authority
to
grant
exemptions
under
extraordinary
circumstances
where
there
is
sufficient
benefit.
J
Last
couple
slides
you've
seen
this
one
before
this
is
about
effective
dates
and
updates.
Andrea
mentioned
the
policy
taking
effect
January
1st.
At
that
point,
the
in
Luffy
compliance
option
be
available
in
June,
the
other
compliance
alternatives
would
also
be
available.
We
recommend
doing
an
annual
update
to
the
in
lieu
fee,
based
on
the
construction
cost
index,
to
make
sure
that
the
cost
of
paying
the
fee
keeps
up
with
the
cost
of
building
units.
J
However,
one
thing
that
granted
solutions
is
found
through
our
many
years
of
working
with
our
200
plus
member
organizations
that
run
long
term,
affordable
housing
programs,
including
inclusionary
housing
programs-
is
that
really
nailing
down
all
the
implementation?
Details
is
absolutely
critical
for
success,
so
grounded
solutions
will
be
working
with
staff
over
the
coming
weeks
on
a
few
different
pieces
will
be
working
on
implementation
details
for
development
procedures.
So
these
are
things
like
exactly
what
information
do
developers
need
to
provide
about
their
isay
compliance?
J
What
photos
do
they
need
to
fill
out
when
did
they
submit
them
and
to
whom,
when
exactly
is
the
in
lieu
fee
paid
things
like
that
and
also
implementation
details
for
selling
and
renting
of
isay
units?
So,
for
example,
if
you're
setting
an
affordable
price
for
a
condo
that
serves
an
80%
ami
household,
how
do
you
consider
things
like
property
taxes
or
HOA
dues
when
you
set
that
affordable
price?
What
are
the
marketing
requirements
for
isay
units
to
ensure
we
have
equitable
access
and
fair
housing
outcomes?
E
J
J
A
K
You
find
a
housing
policy
which
is
in
front
of
us
which
actually
incorporates
both
of
the
amendments
with
a
redlined
version
that
is
in
front
of
us,
so
just
to
walk
through
that.
That
means
on
page
3,
there's
some
language
about
eligible
student
housing,
including
the
bedroom
issue.
That's
in
the
staff
direction
that
maybe
you
were
Fletcher
would
like
to
describe.
There's
a
note
about
the
60%
of
maximum
rent
for
efficiency
units
at
60%
ami
also
related
to
student
housing,
and
it
also
what
I
would
consider
our
kind
of
interim
approach
to
no
net
loss.
K
You
mr.
chair
I've
been
working
on
this
policy
for
a
number
of
years
dating
back
to
last
term
and
really
want
to
thank
councilmember
Schrader
for
jumping
in
in
his
leadership
and
helping
us
get
to
this
point
where
we're
ready
to
vote
on
a
policy
and
I
want
to
thank
staff,
and
our
consultants
for
just
all
of
the
careful
and
thoughtful
work
that
came
into
developing
I
think
has
a
really
balanced
plan,
a
good
start
for
our
city,
I'm,
a
council
member
who
probably
would
have
liked
to
see
it.
K
You
know,
have
required
more
units,
push
a
little
farther,
but
I
think
we
worked
very
hard
to
balance
a
policy
that
would
not
negatively
impact
the
number
of
housing
units
that
were
seen
built
in
our
city,
because
that
would,
in
the
long
run
mean
fewer,
affordable
units
as
well,
because
inclusionary
zoning,
as
its
purpose,
is
leveraging
private
development
to
help
us
build,
affordable
housing
units
and
I.
Think
if
we
look
back,
we
would
see
that
had
we.
K
You
know
that
was
supported
by
the
government
entities
and
affordable
housing
developers
and
having
that
integration
of
some
affordable
units
into
those
buildings
would
have
really
benefited
my
community
so
I
think
going
forward.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
use
one
tool
to
help
get
that
integration,
I
think
as
we
track
this
policy
over
time
and
see
how
it's
working
I'm
interested
in
continuing
to
emphasize
that
on-site
building
of
units.
K
K
Affordable
housing
elsewhere,
but
I
do
think
this
committee
and
myself
have
voiced
priority
for
really
over
time,
emphasizing
and
prioritizing
that
insight
integrated
development,
but
we
know
that
that's
a
challenge
so
I
think
this
policy
again
is
a
good
start
that
balances
those
needs
of
both
continuing
to
see
more
market
rate
housing
and
a
growing
city,
integrating
affordable
housing
into
new
developments
and
when
that
becomes
financially
difficult,
allowing
for
a
lot
of
other
options
to
satisfy
the
policies
goals.
I
just
want
to
briefly
talk
about
this,
no
net
loss
amendment.
K
So
we
talked
about
this
during
the
last
presentation
and
you
know
a
no
net
loss
policy
that
would
go
farther
might
say
that
when
a
new
development
is
proposed,
it
would
need
to
incorporate
the
levels
of
affordability
and
the
kinds
of
affordability
that
might
be
in
existing
buildings
there
today
and
this
policy
as
its
proposed
today,
is
a
start
at
that.
So
this
says
that
a
building
over
100
units
that
would
tear
down
older
homes
that
are
more
than
50
years
old,
which
are
more
likely
to
be
affordable.
K
That
new
project
would
have
to
at
least
replace
the
number
of
units
that
are
there
today,
so
when
on
a
100
unit
building,
instead
of
being
required
to
build
the
eight
units
that
would
be
required
under
the
inclusionary
zoning
policy.
Without
this
you
know,
if
there
were
twelve
units
they're
being
torn
down
older,
affordable
units,
the
new
building
would
have
to
have
12
units.
They
may
not
be
the
same
size,
the
same
number
of
bedrooms.
K
All
of
those
details
could
be
incorporated
into
a
future,
more
robust,
no
net
loss
policy,
but
at
least
for
now
these
larger
projects
that
might
be
tearing
down
older,
affordable
homes
would
have
to
incorporate
more
affordable.
It,
then,
is
required
by
the
8%
so
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
that
and
again
just
want
to
thank
everyone
for
all
of
the
careful
work.
My
colleagues
and
staff,
my
own
staff
in
my
office,
who
put
so
much
time
and
effort
into
this
actually
I've,
had
three
different
aides
work
on
a
difficult
area.
L
Want
to
echo
the
council
president's
words
of
thanks
and
also
just
about
the
importance
of
this
ordinance
like.
First
of
all,
this
is
extremely
well
thought
out
and
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
and
all
the
stakeholders
that
put
in
so
much
time.
I
agree
with
the
council
president.
It's
a
great
start
and
I'm
really
curious
and
looking
forward
to
seeing
how
this
develops
over
time
to
see
how
we
adjust
to
the
market.
I
also
feel
they
I
would
have
loved
to
see
it.
L
Golf
applied
for
more
units,
I'd
love
to
see
it
go
for
more
affordability,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
have
the
healthy
market
that
we
have
and
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
council
members.
That
would
want
this
to
go
a
lot
further,
there's
a
lot
of
our
constituents
that
have
really
been
asking
for
that.
But
this
is
a
great
first
step
to
really
change.
You
know
how
we
value
housing
in
this
city,
but
finally,
I
just
also
want
to
thank
the
council.
L
President
I
think
we've
been
working
for
this
for
so
long
that
we
lose.
How
important
this
moment
is
that
this
is
the
time
that
we're
passing
an
inclusionary
zoning
that
when
something
new
is
going
to
be
built
in
this
city,
we
value
affordability
so
much
that
is
going
to
be
included.
So
thank
you.
Thanks
to
my
colleagues
thank.
A
M
This
is
something
that
I've
been
hearing
about
from
you
since,
before
I
was
even
on
the
council
and
I
know,
it's
been
a
priority
for
a
long
long
time
so
to
see
us
get
to
this
point
where
we
have
a
policy
and
we
have
something
we've
agreed
and
that
we
can
move
forward
with
it
as
a
big
big
accomplishment
and
I
know,
it
was
a
lot
of
work
by
a
lot
of
people,
but
that
your
office
really
did
a
lot
to
keep.
Everybody
focused
on
it.
M
So,
when
I
appreciate
your
leadership
on
that,
the
staff
direction
that
chair,
Gordon
and
I
are
offering
is
to
address
one
gap
that
we
saw
in
in
the
policy
and
I'm
appreciative.
Everybody
working
with
us
on
this
and
appreciative
of
staff
working
with
us
on
this
Andrea
Brennen
in
particular,
did
a
lot
of
work
to
get
us
to
where
we
are,
and
it
just
solves
the
problem
that
for
most
affordable
housing
the
way
affordable
housing
is
defined.
The
students
are
excluded
from
it,
and
so
we
are
leveraging
their
participation
in
the
housing
economy.
M
It's
not
totally
perfect,
because
student
housing
is
complicated
when
we
try
to.
You
know
really
dig
into
this,
but
I
think
to
at
least
be
able
to
break
this
down
to
leases
by
room
because
a
lot
of
times
we're
not
leasing
a
whole
unit,
students
in
ELISA
room
in
a
four
bedroom
apartment
or
something
and
those
arrangements
work
a
little
differently.
And
so
we
wanted
to
figure
out
a
way
to
accommodate
that,
and
we
get
that
done.
M
The
reason
that
this
got
the
focus
that
it
got
from
my
office
and
from
councilmember
Gordon's
office
is
because
of
the
activism
of
students,
and
so
I
really
want
to
appreciate
everybody
who
showed
up
to
testify.
They
were
the
most
prominent
voices
at
the
public
hearing
on
this
ordinance.
They
have
been
consistently
showing
up
at
conversations
about
housing,
that's
being
proposed
to
be
built
in
the
University
District.
M
They
have
been
consistently
showing
up
and
really
making
the
case
for
affordability
is
available
to
students,
and
you
got
our
attention,
and
this
is
a
success
and
a
victory
really
for
all
of
you
that
really
initiated
with
the
students
who
are
going
to
be
impacted
by
this
policy.
So
I
want
to
appreciate
the
time
that
you
put
into
advocating
for
this
particularly
MSA
and
everybody
who's
shown
up
around
this
issue.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
really
appreciate
all
the
comments
that
everybody
made
in
everyone
want
to
echo
them.
I
do
think
the
the
policy
is
rather
complicated,
I
think
it's,
maybe
more
cumbersome
than
I
would
have
wished,
and
maybe
there's
a
little
more
exemptions
and
alternatives
than
would
have
been
ideal.
But
I
understand
that
we
are
trying
to
balance
a
lot
of
needs
and
a
lot
of
wishes
out
there
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
that
we've
been.
A
We
might
be
bending
too
far
over
to
the
the
market,
but
I
also
recognized
that
I'm,
not
an
expert
in
it,
and
so
I
didn't
really
want
to
tinker
with
a
lot
of
things.
I
really
appreciate
the
to
tinker
rings
that
we've
done
as
a
committee.
I
think
the
Nolet
loss
idea
is
is
critically
important
and
I
think
it's
even
something
that
developers.
D
A
A
Unfortunately,
we
can't
necessarily
change
all
those
guidelines
for
those
properties
that
are
getting
assistance
because
of
other
laws
that
get
in
the
way
with
that
printable
assistance,
but
the
ones
that
are
created
in
the
market
without
that
kind
of
assistance
are
open
to
this.
So
I
think
it's
great
that
we
were
able
to
open
up
this
student
eligibility
I
want
to
do
it.
A
Citywide
I
still
would
like
to
I
think
if
we
pretend
students
only
live
in
the
University
District
we're
just
fooling
ourselves,
because
they're
going
to
be
seeking
housing
everywhere,
but
I
also
understand
that
people
were
nervous
about
the
impacts
and
become
the
competition
that
might
be
coming
up
with
affordable
units
throughout
the
city.
So
I'm
really
appreciative
and
hopeful
that
we'll
have
a
unanimous
support
for
doing
it
in
the
University
District
overlay
area
now
and
also
in
the
staff
direction.
A
You'll
notice,
it's
asking
us
to
come
back
and
I
want
us
to
come
back
and
study
it
later
as
part
of
our
follow
up
three-year
study.
So
we
can
look
at
that,
and
maybe
even
after
one
year
we'll
look
at
it
and
we'll
understand
it
will
have
not
much
impact,
and
maybe
we
could
open
it
up
more
because
students
I
talked
to
don't
all
live
within
the
University
District
overlay
who
could
utilize.
A
This
I
do
also
want
to
thank
the
Minnesota
Student
Association
and
people
who
got
involved
in
this
council
member
Fletcher
and
I
participated
in
many
discussions
with
people.
I
also
attended
a
town
hall
that
you
can
being
down
this
topic,
so
we
could
get
understand
more
about
it
and
they
also
rallied
University
staff
and
faculty
to
come
forward
and
help,
and
it
wasn't
just
the
organizing,
although
that
was
really
key,
and
it
was
powerful
when
there
was
enough
outreach
to
the
neighborhood
organizations
around
the
university
to
say.
Of
course
we
support
this.
A
We
want
to
have
this
happen
there
too.
That
was
very
powerful,
but
also
the
data
and
the
information
that
we
got
and
we
could
look
at
it
and
I
hope
that
committee
members
had
an
opportunity
to
read
some
of
the
letters
and
some
of
the
information
there
and
the
fact
that
just
a
small
change
that
we're
doing
it's
estimated
that
an
additional
six
thousand
undergrads
could
then
potentially
benefit
from
this.
A
K
You
mr.
chair
I
just
wanted
to
really
underscore
the
thanks
to
the
students
who've
organized
in
the
organization's
who
supported
students
in
organizing
and
you,
mr.
chair
and
Cosmo
Fletcher,
for
bringing
forward
a
proposal
to
really
strengthen
this
ordinance
to
ensure
that
students
are
well
served.
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
creative
ideas
that
came
forward
about
how
we
could
improve.
You
know
this
ordinance
potentially
in
the
future,
not
just
for
students
but
for
everyone.
K
Looking
at
how
we
define
affordability
and
really
stretching
ourselves
to
imagine
making
policies
like
this
one,
you
know
even
more
effective
for
low-income
people,
including
students,
so
I'm
excited
to
keep
you
know
kind
of
growing
in
how
we
look
at
that
issue.
I
also
wanted
to
really
underscore
that
I,
don't
think
we
would
be
here
passing
this
ordinance,
hopefully
today,
I
think
today,
without
the
work
of
the
homes
for
all
coalition
and
their
member
organizations,
including
the
housing
Justice
Center
who
have
helped
us.
K
You
know
push
for
this
change,
who
have
helped
take
a
very
technical
and
complicated
zoning
issue
and
housing
policy
issue
and
talk
with
people
in
our
communities
about
it's
helping,
build
public
support,
making
sure
that
we
heard
about
it.
You
know
sometimes
even
before
folks
were
in
elected
office.
K
It's
I,
don't
think
it's
common
for
candidates
to
run
on
inclusionary
zoning
or
necessarily
get
questions
about
it
in
candidate
forums,
and
you
made
sure
that
we
did
and
I
know
that
you'll
make
sure
to
continue
to
watch
this
policy
and
and
keep
us
accountable
to
tracking
it
and
improving
it
in
the
future.
So
thank
you
for
all
of
that
work
again.
I,
don't
think
we
would
be
here
without
it.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
I
I,
agree.
I
also
just
want
to
note
and
emphasize
the
date.
This
goes
into
effect,
January
1
and
it
was
noted
earlier
also
that's
when
our
new
comprehensive
plan
will
take
effect
and
that's
when
our
new
regulations
having
to
do
with
duplexes
and
triplexes
being
allowed
throughout
the
city.
So
this
is
a
very
significant
step
and
I
think
it's
something
that
we
envisioned
as
a
package
that
would
have
to
work
together
and
the
package
isn't
complete
necessarily
with
just
those
three
things,
but
this
is
a
significant
step.