[1:31] We're meeting to order. We've got a number of things to cover and we'll get through them quickly and get on with their days.

[1:39] So we've got first order of businesses, the Review and Approval minutes from the November 19 meeting. Everybody set a chance to review those.

[1:49] discussion,

[1:57] but so the second, okay, the motion, the second, any discussion on the minutes.

[2:02] If not all those in favor of approval, signify by say, aye.

[2:06] Aye.

[2:07] Those opposed same sign, all right, the minutes are approved.

[2:11] And next up, we have review and approval of the financial sign.

[2:16] Tash is the already budgeted national

[2:22] review date budgeted, and

[2:25] read budget,

[2:28] and rather use expenditures, and other funding sources are recorded

[2:31] as of November 30, 2005, expenses are under

[2:39] contractive services, $250, $67 for water service,

[2:45] $21,000, $5,000 for five costs, and special assistance for RDA and companies will be

[2:52] at the first street having paid in the amount of $49,000, and $100,000 in 50 cents.

[2:58] The total expenses are 71,536 dollars, 40% cents,

[3:03] purely occupants of the data as a real land and credit is

[3:07] provide for non-mement marketing and the key in our

[3:09] properties will be applied to the tax to is also an overview of the

[3:13] 20,26 operating and capital budget for the area and

[3:20] any questions

[3:21] on that, please go over to ask.

[3:24] Any questions?

[3:31] Questions and other questions?

[3:32] Just a quick question.

[3:35] How will those new funds show up on the

[3:38] the financials that we see.

[3:41] The new funds for the 246 capital?

[3:44] So that would just be an additional page.

[3:47] So you'll still probably see the creator $48,000.

[3:52] I think we're going to hold that.

[3:54] But then you'll see that the $1,000 additional project.

[3:58] And it's always a separate page.

[4:00] Just kind of separate the two significant projects.

[4:02] Okay.

[4:03] Thank you.

[4:04] And then is there an operating budget?

[4:06] Okay, for next year's long.

[4:09] I'll tell you 26, we're looking at our two-order tying thousands.

[4:14] I don't know if we're going to ask for the R&P, but it's a little bit

[4:17] to kind of cover the non-operating cost, which I'm trying to increase for

[4:22] the way credits have been also the management, the additional management of the

[4:27] R&P.

[4:28] Thank you.

[4:30] Yeah, I see that.

[4:32] Thank you.

[4:36] Any other questions?

[4:38] If not, energy and emotion approval of financials.

[4:42] So moved.

[4:45] Emotion and second, any further discussion on financials?

[4:49] Not all those in favour, signify by saying aye.

[4:52] Aye.

[4:53] Those opposed.

[4:54] Same sign.

[4:55] The financials are approved.

[4:58] Next item of business.

[5:00] I believe it's a public comment for items that are not listed as public hearing or discussion.

[5:06] See, nobody here in attendance for that. So, go on to the next one. Business items with public hearing or public discussion.

[5:18] Leave that and then we're on to item six. Other business, the discussion of the new RDA development districts and potential redevelopment

[5:29] So, Bill, you're taking that for us?

[5:33] I'm going to attempt to.

[5:36] So, Aaron called me this morning and he said,

[5:39] it doesn't change from when it was presented to you last month.

[5:43] You guys had asked for some metrics.

[5:45] He felt that more of a site by site with it being such a large district.

[5:53] would make sense, and there's the two maps, I think the second one they added on a little more.

[6:08] Yes, so his thought was, if you guys are comfortable voting for it today without the metrics and then working on on case by case,

[6:17] which I could do the whole presentation, but 30 minutes wasn't enough for me to figure out RDA all together.

[6:26] Oh,

[6:31] any discussion, any thoughts?

[6:36] I think the only thing I was trying to figure out in there,

[6:38] and I couldn't maybe see the else you read.

[6:40] I could help. I can't figure out where we ended

[6:42] on the leanboard piece.

[6:43] That part?

[6:45] Yeah, he said, you guys didn't feel comfortable,

[6:49] so that was taken out.

[6:58] I believe there were other commission members

[7:00] that were a little more concerned about the metrics

[7:03] and having those insurgents so do our read here.

[7:10] Do those questions remain for the group?

[7:14] Can I ask a question and I don't think Billy, you probably won't be very well-cited to answer the question.

[7:20] I don't know, Dave, maybe you have an answer.

[7:22] Is there any repercussion or consequence if RDA postpones this decision to the January meeting?

[7:29] Is there a reason we need to take action today?

[7:30] I was just thinking of the same thing.

[7:35] I don't think that there are any negative

[7:37] aroundifications of budgetary past.

[7:39] There aren't any more calls for meetings.

[7:41] The rest of this year.

[7:43] So if we could, it was elected to people's calling.

[7:47] We could just have that discussion in January.

[7:50] I could have that report there.

[7:53] So I'm not aware of any negative consequences.

[7:55] This is where people's calls to January is meeting.

[8:05] The two pieces of feedback I'd like to just share in contemplation of this coming back again.

[8:13] The key performance metrics section that was added, I'm actually fairly satisfied by,

[8:22] because it gives us something to shoot for.

[8:24] I think it's just that we just don't know what the baseline is.

[8:27] And so we continue to refine that and get to those so that we can have some measurements.

[8:33] So that isn't as much a concern for me at this point.

[8:38] I think I'd still like to see more of a phasing.

[8:43] I know we've had the five years to review,

[8:48] but I think still understanding getting a better plan

[8:54] for how we're going to approach even in the first year

[8:58] with the capital budget we have, what's specific.

[9:03] activities we're going to undertake in those first year or two.

[9:09] So getting it, just getting it.

[9:11] Just a, it doesn't have to be extensive, but just a, something that's just a little more,

[9:16] that brings a bit more confidence to that next steps.

[9:22] And that, the last thing I wanted to raise to the group was

[9:30] this being,

[9:42] I'm feeling a bit of mission creep with all of the mixed use of commercial discussion.

[9:51] So I was wondering if there was a way to limit the focus of this two just affordable housing.

[10:00] So that in the future, if there are other commercial redevelopments that we want to take, that's a different district.

[10:09] This just seems

[10:12] kind of the

[10:19] word for that, but this is just too much, and I want to just make sure we're focused.

[10:26] I want this just to be, I would prefer this to be more of a focus effort for affordable housing within this district.

[10:32] And that that's what the fathers are coming to city council to the capital budget for.

[10:40] So let's make sure that our district is focused on that goal.

[10:43] That is the goal of this district.

[10:45] So I

[10:48] don't know if there's necessarily a risk, but I think there's maybe just an attention.

[10:54] Let's focus on the thing we're supposed to focus on.

[10:58] This may be my feedback.

[11:04] Could you, like, I'm a little, what do you mean by a new district if there's commercial like that?

[11:08] Oh, so, like, within this district, the way it's written now is that if there was any project on any property,

[11:18] you know, I know there's, there's talk of various redevelopment opportunities within this, this large area.

[11:26] And so theoretically, the ideas we can undertake that project within this district, even though we only have funds for affordable housing.

[11:40] So it would be a specific, like if there's a commercial project that did not want to include affordable housing, we would have to make a district, or the flip is anything redeveloped here would have to have a piece of affordable housing to it.

[11:57] Yes, maybe that's a more positive way to say that, is that this is any projects would we would

[12:04] only support them or be a part of it through the affordable housing funds and plants of this district.

[12:11] And I like about you saying because of the capital dollars which one of my notes is at some point we have to decide what is affordable housing.

[12:19] And how are we going to spend the million dollars on whatever, you know, what definition are we using to decide

[12:26] But what that is, we're going to correct, but I think you're going to end right, as you read the

[12:32] metrics.

[12:33] I think we sought to get down to what metrics, yeah.

[12:35] What is the definition around a portable housing?

[12:38] And then, part two is, if next year, the council wants to allocate $2 million to the

[12:43] already, like, the normally do it without the caveat that has to be housing, to your

[12:47] point, right?

[12:48] How do we still use the district that we, you know, to be how do we then use those

[12:52] dollars without creating another district?

[12:54] Do we just modify? Do we leave the district in right now? It's the focus in your phases is affordable housing

[13:00] But then next year if it's like hey, here's $2 million. We want to just truthfully in some of these areas

[13:05] You're going to want commercial development just to raise the tax roll. You're going to want a little bit of those

[13:10] So I don't know how easy it is to modify a district if we

[13:15] Limit it or we just phase how we're going to spend money over the next couple years

[13:19] I think you can change the

[13:22] The active, you can change the district plan, I think if there was a project, you know,

[13:27] there's been that discussion of that industrial property kind of west of Canary District.

[13:35] That should be its own redevelopment plan with its own redevelopment funds targeted towards

[13:42] that project.

[13:43] So if there was in my mind, if there was an opportunity for a project, we would say, here's

[13:50] potential districts and then we would tell the city council these are the funds we need and that's how that would

[13:58] I would imagine that to work maybe that's you know the turning next not here to maybe correct my

[14:08] process but you know we have funds for affordable housing that's the focus so let's make this

[14:14] type. This is an affordable housing district.

[14:21] I think when we talked about this, you know,

[14:24] set up being a traditional, a staff level,

[14:27] what director wait. This isn't like the current

[14:31] part, so we're going to read about it.

[14:32] We're going to read about people,

[14:36] lots of things. And this is a piece, but the reading

[14:40] through the, uh, reading through the introduction.

[14:44] It's full of references that this is the housing, housing first, affordable housing first district that's supposed to be full of it.

[15:00] With this being a parcel of parcel, district, throat, entire city, instead of just being a whole block here, a whole block there.

[15:07] I think that ability to add in commercial wasn't intended to be the emphasis, but if something means sense,

[15:15] the key on, he would have given it our key for, at least, the flexibility of a dressing

[15:22] that are including that, you could say, so it sure is without having to create it to

[15:26] one.

[15:28] But it could leave the door open for a different focus, a way for all of them to get to your point

[15:35] to do it really good.

[15:38] So, the ward of the future got dialed in that, a technology of all of that, that's a big

[15:42] in that building, you're just referring to instead of

[15:48] quite a

[15:49] developmental

[15:52] pit-castical creep, so another role in this

[15:55] driver, the driver's statement saying that this is a

[15:59] housing first and circumstances where people would benefit

[16:03] affordable housing, or, you know, that would be what this

[16:09] certainly, this one is, it's not the intent, at least people

[16:14] to talk internally to get this view

[16:19] or for a store where it's 4 to 6

[16:26] so I don't know

[16:27] what else would come to mind would be like a first year to think about if

[16:36] there's something

[16:36] like that, seeing a whole lot, really, I mean, whether it's business that would go down

[17:02] through a lot of

[17:03] nice things that we'd like to do, but

[17:12] if I understood a bit of the evolution of the plan and the

[17:17] district there, you know, it was to strike that balance between both of those objectives.

[17:24] So it was not to carve out and say, you know,

[17:28] this is going to be exclusively affordable housing

[17:31] focused.

[17:32] I mean, it never using the word exclusively,

[17:35] but never pointing in that direction.

[17:37] I think that came from how the city and its capital

[17:43] improvement plan decided to allocate dollars for the RDA.

[17:48] And so we've got one cool of funds that's hanging out here

[17:53] available to us for affordable housing issues,

[17:58] but we still have a base of assets, investments in land.

[18:04] And so forth, here, that doesn't go away,

[18:08] unless we choose to grant it all away

[18:10] in terms of incentives and so forth.

[18:12] And so that those resources as well,

[18:15] and I don't think that anybody, this is opinion,

[18:21] this isn't a fact, but I don't think

[18:23] that our hands are so tied by the affordable housing side

[18:29] that we don't have opportunities to do things.

[18:33] And so I'd be a little bit of a theory, you know,

[18:35] for example, the piece adjacent to the cannery,

[18:40] the industrial building we've talked about

[18:42] in the most times that there, you know,

[18:44] I don't know that we have the finances to do that,

[18:46] but I wouldn't want to definitely exclude that possibility

[18:52] from RDA activities, you know, by narrowing the scope on this district because I think the

[19:03] idea had always been, you know, we don't want to do a piece by piece redevelopment district

[19:10] for a specific property. We want to do areas and so this bigger plan was kind of a compromise

[19:19] towards that. I don't know what the answer is in terms of defining it and maybe it's to

[19:25] the point of saying, you know, we are our shift in focuses primarily in affordable housing,

[19:33] but in this district, but you know, it doesn't have to be kind of exclude, I don't think we

[19:40] move to an exclusive in that way.

[19:47] Is there interest in affirming that the intent is

[19:55] for projects that occur in this district?

[20:00] Are at a affordable housing component?

[20:09] The next use.

[20:14] As of the way the funding is written, we're a little like it's almost like we're

[20:18] going to have a couple, we'll like a couple of funding pools that everything in accounting

[20:23] is going to have to deal with, but I think if you do something like that, then when we

[20:29] have other funding available, we're then having to repeat the process of district day, right?

[20:38] We recognize there's, we have other funds currently available.

[20:41] We recognize there's pieces within this project also that do that need,

[20:45] that probably would not fit in that portable housing initiative, right?

[20:50] Like, sort of we go, create two and same districts,

[20:54] but one uses this funding, one uses this and it's sort of a,

[20:58] I guess maybe I'm thinking of examples of like the South,

[21:00] the South, the South, the Lake Street, we've talked about,

[21:05] You know, these other pockets of districts that maybe it is an affordable housing project

[21:12] that fits here, but if there are other mechanisms or other, I guess, is it appropriate

[21:21] for, as the question I'm wrestling with?

[21:24] Is it appropriate for us to take this approach with virtually city-wide district to take

[21:33] areas like that may be more appropriate as a single district. So does this just is the ease of

[21:44] administration appropriate?

[21:50] I think is what I'm trying to understand. I think you're back to where we started, right?

[21:55] Because this is so big.

[21:58] We've been and we've never done it and you're going to you'll have

[22:05] the district that you can't really just say it's exclusive to affordable housing because you certainly know that there are districts within this district that you might go in and say here's four blocks we're going to

[22:15] We do want to

[22:17] Buy them raise them and turn that into and it could be some affordable housing it could be some commercial so I think the clarification here is

[22:24] There's to Jenny's point there's dollars in our affordable housing and if we lay over this big huge district is this helpful this is more helpful to the city to have a bigger zone

[22:32] And to the RDA, or is it more complicated?

[22:37] And maybe that's just an ear request.

[22:38] Right?

[22:39] Like, does this just get more complicated?

[22:40] Because it's written so that's affordable housing.

[22:42] But yeah, we clearly know what's to the canary.

[22:45] You know, there's places in here where you're going to do commercial.

[22:48] Does this just allow them to shift the focus?

[22:51] But because it's not exclusive to housing?

[22:54] Because it's a huge district.

[22:55] I mean, this is a very large footprint around everything.

[22:59] You're going to have a little bit of all of it in there.

[23:00] I don't want to say harmful because that's not the right word, but I mean, is it helpful or harmful to have it be so big that you then just really is kind of the magic very wanted to say, okay, here's where we're going to go and we don't have to come back and change his own.

[23:12] I don't know.

[23:14] And maybe to that point, the question is, you know, is there a parallel between what we talked about for the river, you know, the industrial area, the same, where we've got three focus areas with it, but it's one district, there, you know, I see that it's potentially a parallel ease of convenient, you know,

[23:42] administration and so forth that, you know, by definition, okay, we want these to gather, but we've got a really three different focused pieces there.

[23:51] You've got this large area, but you can have focus built or developed within that in that effort.

[23:59] But it may be a question for there.

[24:03] I know, you know, the question of, you know, that the large size of this part of the staff thinking with this is,

[24:11] by the properties that would potentially be targeted for affordable housing would be available

[24:19] to the city either on the tax rolls of the county if they're going to buy taxes.

[24:24] We give the first choice of those poor people accurate, but it'll be part of our building's

[24:27] inspections. On the third leg of the stool would be existing parcels of the city owners that are

[24:38] project to rebuild the house and they're making a lot of store remains but now they're

[24:41] only looking at what I was trying to run there. So part of the overall size of it was

[24:47] to allow for the maximum exposure of both properties to come to the REA as well as trade

[24:58] encompass the different areas of view.

[25:11] So we wanted to have areas of the city that seem to have a higher incidence, the streets of those, and they're all over. They're not in one area. There's someone on our side. There's someone on the cell side by soccer park. So it was just, it wasn't an effort to not be focused. It was warm enough for it to try to take place.

[25:33] yet is many opportunities to be able to choose the best points for that,

[25:38] is that a smaller extent to that is to not have affordable housing

[25:43] kind of needed in the one area, they have the poorest growth of the community.

[25:47] So, yeah, it's a 70% of the city, sort of a lot of what area

[25:51] I'll take to go through.

[25:55] I wanted to also offer, I agree that the intent, I think, of this district,

[26:03] who's really focused on affordable housing.

[26:05] And I think I feel comfortable and quite confident

[26:08] that that's reflected in the plan right now.

[26:12] And I do think, especially with consideration some of the

[26:15] points raised about future funding sources,

[26:18] maybe not being so limited to affordable housing

[26:21] specifically and kind of how could that fit into the plan,

[26:27] what would we in the plan want to make sure

[26:29] is, I guess, eligible and eligible use of those funds

[26:33] that aren't so restricted, and I do think there's something to be said about commercial

[26:37] properties and how, although they might not be creating new affordable housing units,

[26:42] they can create more affordable neighborhoods, I think about some commercial things like grocery

[26:47] stores and childcare providers. And so, I think I see the value of including some language

[26:56] that would allow for that type of flexibility. I do think it'd be helpful, maybe to clarify,

[27:01] You know, at least a broad intent across every project is part of this district, having some

[27:06] link back to affordable, affordable living, affordable neighborhoods, community connectedness,

[27:13] because those things matter too.

[27:16] And so I guess I don't know that I have something really specific, like a specific piece of

[27:19] feedback to offer about how exactly to accomplish that.

[27:22] But I guess my two sense on the issues, I see value and I see that, you know, how commercial

[27:27] properties can't link back to affordable living for people in all clear.

[27:32] I see both sides of that issue.

[27:36] Thank you.

[27:37] I really like where this conversation is going, and it's bringing me more confidence.

[27:44] And I think kind of comparing this to the previous, and I really like that link of having

[27:52] There are noticeable sections of the prior plan.

[27:58] And so the Section F future land use map is where that occurred in the previous plan.

[28:06] Maybe there's an opportunity to do the same sort of thing in this one to say.

[28:12] In this, here are, you know, it was easy to call out certain sites in the other one.

[28:18] But, you know, it's sort of that, maybe it may be, it may be we do call out South

[28:22] Marstone, South of Lake Street, or West of the Cannery District, or North Forest Street,

[28:31] neighborhood.

[28:34] Maybe there's an opportunity to call those out so that we can be more specific about what we're trying

[28:38] to do in these areas.

[28:49] towards that end, I guess, say, try to keep the meeting on topic and focus.

[28:58] Do we, our, am I sensing a consensus that we'd like to continue this discussion with Aaron,

[29:05] and post-pone approval on this until January's meeting?

[29:15] I'm not sure.

[29:15] Do we do that with the motion or the lack of action?

[29:18] And you did all of it offer you a get some motion to postpone action on the side of

[29:25] until the January with the discussion at that time.

[29:30] I'll second.

[29:31] Okay.

[29:31] We have motion in second.

[29:33] Any further discussion?

[29:36] All those in favor of postponements.

[29:38] Signify by saying aye.

[29:40] Aye.

[29:40] Those opposed.

[29:41] Signify?

[29:43] The motion to postpone is approved.

[29:47] For feedback for Erin, if I got a lot of notes, but if I put it in a high level, you guys like the affordable housing.

[29:56] You want the focus to be there, but you also want something to frightening.

[30:00] I'll allow commercial where appropriate. Okay.

[30:07] Eat that. And if there were opportunities to call out our highlight areas, just as we have discussion

[30:18] around the southwest quadrant or whatever in the city, you know, it was kind of three sub-projects or whatever.

[30:25] if there were a capability to at least create a few focus points that might be helpful for

[30:35] future boards to discuss.

[30:37] I think all this ultimately comes down to an already a board that can selectively approve

[30:44] or deny opportunities that can maintain an affordability of housing focus in any of those

[30:53] projects, but if we're setting a mission and we're setting a plan, let's try to get that built in as much as we can.

[31:03] That and facing.

[31:05] We've got that.

[31:08] All right.

[31:10] We have any other questions.

[31:12] Billy Hissier.

[31:14] I don't know.

[31:15] I think I think I got a good conversation.

[31:18] Any updates then from the Braunfields assessment grant update?

[31:23] I don't have anything.

[31:24] And he didn't share anything.

[31:25] Just morning, less paid, would know anything.

[31:28] I'm not familiar with that.

[31:31] With that, it's mentally just, I apologize.

[31:36] And then from an executive director's report, we all want that.

[31:41] You guys are doing great.

[31:45] Keep it up.

[31:46] Well, thank you so much.

[31:48] I appreciate that.

[31:50] With that, I see that our next meeting date

[31:53] scheduled for January 21st, I think it would only add the comment that, you know, any other

[32:00] feedback of, you know, let's make sure that we're offering that directly to Aaron as well,

[32:07] direct communications from any of us to him, in terms of refinement here ahead of that meeting,

[32:14] And then I will entertain the emotion to the journey.

[32:20] So most of the time, most of you,

[32:23] except that we're a journey.

[32:32] It was heard as a whole of my...

[32:36] You used to do that, but it was God Allen.

[32:41] I would do a hot, it would be just like, quite certain, so I could have that.

[32:46] It's like you could have it, like, no problem.

[32:48] Yeah.

Redevelopment Authority

Agenda

Transcript