Committee of the Whole Meeting 10/13/2026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0fx-oF9RBA Automatic captions; not audio-verified. [3:16] 30. Let's call the committee of the whole of the city of Highland Park City Council to order. Today's October 13, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role? [3:25] Council member [clears throat] present. [3:28] Here. Council member Ross here. Council member present. Council member here. [3:36] Council member here. [3:38] Mayor Rotary here. Do we have a quorum? Um, may I have a motion to go into close session for purposes of setting price for sale [3:46] or lease of property pursuant to 5c1 120/2 subc. [3:52] So move and there's a there's a few more bases for going into close session, but that's going to be after city [4:00] council meeting. Yeah. So just for this one. So we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. [4:06] Thanks. Will the clerk call the vote, please? Council member center. Hi. Council member Buckman. Hi. Council member Ross. Hi. Council member Safia. [4:14] Hi. Council member Lickard. Hi. Council member. I. Seven eyes. No. We'll go into closed. [53:13] Okay, we have you till 7, right? [53:25] Okay. [53:30] Um Okay, mics are on. Um, may I have a motion to approve the minutes of the regular [53:38] committee of the whole held September 28th, 2026? So move. Second. All in favor say I. I. Thank you. [53:47] Greetings and welcome. [53:51] Okay. Um, into housing. Thank you. Yes. [53:58] Um, do you mind just getting Oh, getting Joel. There we go. I was going to say the main we have a we have a very short [54:06] PowerPoint. Um so this is just a followup to the last committee of the whole meeting um whereas we talked about the city's affordable housing policy. Um [54:16] following that meeting our staff team um which included uh director Fontaine, myself um and others. We put together an [54:25] outline identifying the four bullet points that you see there. commission objectives, next steps, policy questions and research and analysis based on what [54:33] we understood from the policy direction at that committee. The whole meeting I shared that with the city council did receive a couple of additional questions [54:41] that we just want to share um here at this public meeting and just get council feedback to ensure we are on the same [54:48] page as it pertains to next steps. So, very briefly, I'm just going to go through those four bullet points. Um they're also in the packet and it was [54:56] also emailed to the city council. Um but one is we heard the council was unanimous that the objective of this [55:04] initiative is to increase the number of affordable units by evaluating the measure in which the number of units is developed. So that is um I read that [55:13] word for word because it is important again we're interested in increasing affordable units in the community. Um and so that's kind of our foundation for [55:21] moving forward. Um the mission and objectives for in our inclusionary housing policy is set forth in the [55:28] municipal code. So that is also going to serve as the foundation as we move forward. There's not an interest I understood from anyone to revisit that. [55:37] But we do want to make sure that it is before every um stakeholder group that we talk to as part of our next steps um of discussion on this topic. [55:48] So in terms of the next steps that we would be undertaking would be meetings with a number of different stakeholders and we would start that as soon as we [55:56] have council feedback in terms of these next steps. Um one is want to just give [56:03] the city council an opportunity to meet with our staff as well as our partner agency um SEPHA. We have Amy Coffins in [56:12] the audience this evening um representing SEPHA and so we would be pleased to meet with elected officials again just to make sure that um we're [56:20] answering all your questions making sure that you really have an in-depth understanding of truly this very um [56:28] technical policy that we have for the city. And so we would offer that to all elected officials. [56:35] um we would follow up with the POA and again I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. It was always our intention to make sure to follow up with [56:43] the POA to um understand their questions and feedback um even outside of their [56:49] position paper. And so um we've had some preliminary meetings with them throughout the course of them drafting their position paper but we would set up [56:58] a formal meeting with them our staff also include our partner agency uh representatives at SEIPA as part of that [57:06] joint meeting. Um our housing commission are the appointed officials um appointed by the mayor with consent of the council. And so in terms of the policy [57:15] discussion and the public deliberations, it would be before that public body and any meeting that we have on this topic. [57:23] Um we would also invite um interested individuals that we have heard from um [57:29] residents um PA members obviously we have sea there and then we've also heard from a number of residents who also [57:37] represent Lake County housing um as well as interested residential developers working in Highland Park and other [57:44] stakeholders. And then depending on the any zoning consideration, we would obviously adhere to our municipal code [57:51] and schedule meetings before the PDC if there is a um text amendment to our code that would be warranted. Um our housing [57:59] commission work plan for 27 um does set forth this general statement of following up on any policy [58:07] considerations that the city council deems appropriate to review. And so that's going to be reflected in their 27 work plan because this would be an initiative that they would be [58:15] undertaking with support of staff. And then one thing um that we talked about the last committee the whole meeting um [58:22] but we put a time frame associated with it in terms of our followup. We talked about the importance of making sure that [58:29] developers know what they're going to be faced with when they are looking at redevelopment of property. And so, [58:38] [clears throat] [58:38] um, the suggestion is that anything that we talk about would not go into effect until either 29 or 30. And again, that just gives developers an understanding. [58:50] It takes sometimes more than a year to put properties together. And so they're as they do their economic analyses, just giving them the known of, okay, what [58:59] what am I going to have to comply with as it pertains to affordable housing regulations in Highland Park. Um, so that's that. We can come back to that. [59:07] In terms of the policy um questions for the housing commissions, I won't read this to you, but this was in the packet and again emailed to you. We talked [59:15] specifically about the first two um at the committee of the whole meeting. The third one was based on our feedback with [59:22] SEIPA and our staff. Um one thing that was raised at the last committee of the whole meeting is the number of people that are on affordable housing list. [59:30] people um have have limited incomes and they're unaffordable housing because they want [59:38] to live in Highland Park. Um a large number of those people are not meeting the income eligibility. And so that's [59:46] why often they're having a difficult time getting placed. And so one issue that we've identified here is in order to address the greatest need allow [59:55] developers to look at the proportional number of units at lower income tiers um and the fewer high income tiers. And [1:00:03] again we again just looking at it in terms of policy consideration may be one way to provide an increased number of affordable housing properties rather [1:00:12] than having that strict threshold that we're meeting of the income tiers alone. [1:00:17] Um so policy questions for your consideration that was in the report and then um research and analysis is kind of just general we will do research in [1:00:25] terms of um being prepared to talk about this policy topic as we move forward. [1:00:31] Um, and then, um, these are the additional policy questions that were emailed after that draft went out to the [1:00:39] city council. And so just looking for council's feedback on whether or not we include this or any changes that we make to the totality of this work plan. [1:00:48] Thanks. Um, I know you have a few comments. I have a couple of questions. [1:00:53] One is why would we just talk to the POA? Why wouldn't we talk to other major property owners? We know that there are [1:01:01] within the CBD, within the B5, within all these different areas where housing would be, why wouldn't we bring in or at [1:01:08] least invite other stakeholders? Yeah. [1:01:11] But but I just want to make sure that it's not like the POA and we're not bringing in like if the POA is here, [1:01:20] they should be joined by their fellow property owners in those districts. To me, it just makes sense. My other [1:01:27] question was, how, if at all, can we dovetail this with our comprehensive plan? We're hiring these people to help [1:01:35] us figure out where to move next in terms of land use. I think this is a clear and obvious place where they should be integrated into this question. [1:01:45] And then my favorite, but not so much, um, is the state and state preeemption [1:01:52] are huge issues in terms of what we're going to be facing. And we know that in terms of the build act, it's either coming in the veto session or it's [1:02:01] coming in the lame duck session. There is absolute certainty that this is moving forward. that will take over so [1:02:10] many of these questions potentially at least based on what was proposed in the spring session of the Illinois General Assembly. So, I appreciate that we want [1:02:19] to have these conversations. I think we want to see at least what comes out of the veto session because if there's already a law, then I think we got to [1:02:28] rejigger our whole mindset because we're now going to have to comply with state law regardless of what anybody has in mind in terms of local policy [1:02:36] decisionmaking. So, all property owners, comprehensive plan, build act, those are sort of my my big things. And I really [1:02:44] appreciate you highlighting the point that developers really need to know what they are faced with and giving them the [1:02:51] time to plan accordingly. I think that's really smart. So, thank you. Um, you had your hand up. [1:02:57] Thank you. Um, I guess I'll start at the end of what you just said. I hadn't planned on commenting on that but I [1:03:03] think it's it's really sort of the thing we actually ought to focus on which is [1:03:10] that whatever we are doing or may do may be irrelevant in a short period of time. Right. [1:03:17] With that in mind, my preference would be to do nothing. [1:03:20] We have a successful inclusionary zoning ordinance that has been probably the single most successful program of its [1:03:28] kind in the state. It serves in my opinion as an excellent example for our legislature. And if they're going to impose anything on all of us, both home [1:03:37] rule units and non and non-home rule units, it ought to look something like what we've got. And I think we ought to leave it alone and see how that flies with the state. [1:03:46] And and we've shared um and kudos to our community development crew in great detail what we've done, how long things [1:03:55] have been in place, what the outcomes have been, and so forth. [1:03:58] Right. And and I want to reiterate that in every instance in which um state, regional, and national developers have [1:04:06] been asked about our ordinance and the issue of development and how it's affected by an inclusionary zoning [1:04:12] ordinance. The uniform unanimous response is it's we can work with it. As long as we know what to expect and and [1:04:21] it remains consistent, we're happy to do that. And objectively, we've seen that that is the case. We've had a tremendous amount of development in Highland Park. [1:04:30] Nobody has asked for an exception to our inclusionary zoning ordinance. Uh, occasionally a developer has requested [1:04:38] to pay a fee of Loo instead of building a unit. There hasn't been a lot of that, but that's actually within the ordinance. So, it's not an exception to [1:04:46] the ordinance. So, our ordinance has been very successful and we've had a tremendous amount of development uh again at various commercial levels. Um [1:04:55] we we most recently had Solo Cup uh build out an enormous amount of property that is intended to be geared towards a [1:05:04] middle income level. We had Albian who has developed um and Fulton Development and Mark Mueller have developed a wide [1:05:11] range of properties uh including Laurel and Laurel 2 and their more recent developments which are high-end luxury [1:05:18] properties. All of these have complied with our inclusionary zoning. The only thing that came out of our last session [1:05:26] was an interest in looking there was only consensus to look at two issues. [1:05:31] One whether when a developer develops fewer than the total number of commercial units he or she could develop [1:05:39] under the code should they still be required to be responsible for the total number of inclusionary units they would [1:05:47] be responsible for if they were building the total number of commercial units they could build. And the other question is whether the fee loo might be [1:05:56] increased to meet the level of an actual total cost of a unit. Um other than that [1:06:03] there was no consensus to go forward on anything else. There is no agreement to look at the policy of our inclusionary [1:06:11] zoning code. Um we just went through that less than 10 years ago. um that actually included the calculation of the [1:06:21] percentage of inclusionary units. So at uh page this is the right page page five that first number that first bullet [1:06:29] point is not something I'm comfortable looking at. We we looked at how the total percentage of units is calculated. [1:06:38] It's a successful percentage. It is not necessary to reexamine that to get to the second two points. I would not be in [1:06:45] favor of that. I think that creates uncertainty and I I would I would not support that. Um [1:06:53] on page on on slide seven um you raised a number of issues that again there was no consensus on. Discuss [1:07:02] the total units or proportion. That is not something uh other than whether we could demand the total number of [1:07:10] inclusionary units that could be required if the total number of commercial units were offered is the one [1:07:19] issue in terms of percentage that we had a consensus to discuss. So other than that I'm not interested in and I don't [1:07:27] think we agreed to any of this. And my fear is that we're we're looking at an opportunity to go backwards to try to [1:07:35] reduce the number of inclusionary units that uh developers are required to be responsible for either through building [1:07:43] on site or paying a fee in loot. Um and and I I'm I'm just very concerned that that's the area that we're now trying to [1:07:52] head. That was what was suggested in the position paper that was given to us by the Pa. I respect that. I understand it. [1:07:58] that it's a position paper and the position that it was expressed in that paper is completely inconsistent with the objective facts that exist in our [1:08:07] community and I don't want to undo that and go backwards. Thank you. Other comments, council member Tapia. [1:08:16] Yeah, I I appreciate the concern about going backwards, but if you go back to the first slide, if you can um if you [1:08:25] look at what the objective is is to increase the number of affordable units. [1:08:30] So that's the objective and if we cannot achieve the objective then then we we didn't I mean you know it's like but uh [1:08:39] as as I expressed last time I think a lot has happened in the last decade and it's worth looking at some variables that we don't know what the unintended [1:08:47] consequence is and I think it's a good time to see there's some good creative thinking that could be done as we look at new realities we we have more density [1:08:56] good for us you know and then we have the highend and luxury units the market has created and the than the ones over the soil cup. I mean that's nice variety [1:09:05] but I I I don't think there's any harm at all and in fact a potential upside because if in the end we meet our objective of having more inclusionary [1:09:13] housing then that's exactly what we want to do. So uh and we have some factors like the square footage issue um which [1:09:21] council agrees that that'd be worth looking at. [1:09:25] Uh but also, you know, even when we have these high-end luxury um units, you know, then yeah, we have our [1:09:32] inclusionary housing at below market rate, but they're still kind of they they rise up because they're such big units and luxury that then a bunch of [1:09:41] people that really actually I don't want to say who's more deserving, less disturbing, but have greater barriers to access now get more and more displaced [1:09:49] and marginalized. So I I think I would add to the objective increase the number of affordable units and also the [1:09:57] diversity of housing stock because I think you know we are trapped in if you earn just above that you're not in and [1:10:06] those families don't have access and we know the problem affordability in general for a lot of people and they used to have that issue and then if you [1:10:14] earn too little then you're you're out of luck too in terms of our program. So I feel this is a good moment to think are we addressing the the inclusionary [1:10:23] housing needs of different income levels. Right now I think we're too narrow. Um uh and uh I think we we can go up and we can go down. So I want to [1:10:32] explore what that means and in fact that would have a net effect of having more may we have a definition of inclusionary [1:10:39] but it's called inclusionary affordable or um accessible units right where we lower the barriers [1:10:48] to entry not just economically but in other ways you know and maybe there's some ways that um there can be some [1:10:56] creativity about what are the barriers of people getting housing. Yeah. bring the cost down. Sure, that's a good one. [1:11:02] But if there's too many people on the waiting list, how do we create more opportunities? So, I think there's plenty of opport uh vehicles for us to [1:11:10] explore financial, you know, zoning, you know, partnerships, collaborations, new programs, new policies. I think this is [1:11:18] a good moment to in the same way, mayor, and I would agree with you that we're saying let's look at the city plan holistically. this completely should be [1:11:27] part and parcel of that larger plan, right? [1:11:30] Not as a separate, you know, one-off, right? [1:11:32] And I think that opens up even more strategic avenues because now we're going to think more bigger about the kind of city we want to be and what's [1:11:40] going to require and ecosystemwise how one thing can reinforce the other. I mean, we now have one more thing I'll say. Mhm. [1:11:47] Uh we know there's a gentrification issue. [1:11:51] Some of the workforce that works in Highland Park and Highwood, and we care about Highwood, too, because of our symbiotic relationship, right, is having to travel from farther and [1:11:59] farther and farther away. This starts to affect the city's ability to be a vibrant, you know, community in terms of services and restaurants and and other [1:12:07] things. So, I think we got to look at this holistically. And this I think the timing is great to really open it up and really look at it. And let's remind [1:12:15] everybody what the objective is to increase the amount of inclusionary and affordable housing in Highland Park at [1:12:22] different income levels. And if we stay the course with that as our northstar, that should be driving our decisions. [1:12:28] Right. Right. It's a it's a complex equation and we just want to make sure that no sudden movement creates unintended consequences. [1:12:38] Um, council members, I think to that point, mayor, right, we it is complicated, right? I had pointed out last time during our meeting. This [1:12:46] is a issue that has significant economic considerations and [1:12:55] that requires a lot of input from different stakeholders and individuals [clears throat] who participate in different ways to make sure that decisions that are made, you know, don't [1:13:03] have unintended consequences. But it's very complicated and for that reason, we need to revisit this. And I think to say that we did this 10 years ago, okay, [1:13:14] construction costs are up 55%. 10-year Treasury is up 350 basis points in that since that point. Like the cost of borrowing and financing is different. [1:13:21] Just the economic considerations from a decade ago are night and day from what they are today. And as a result, maybe the system that was designed and [1:13:29] implemented at that time might not have the same end goals as what we're looking for today. So, I agree wholeheartedly [1:13:36] with council member Topia's comments. I really also like the addition of the diversity of housing stock. It's a topic that we've talked about, you know, the [1:13:44] opportunity for aging in place and um different types of residences. [1:13:50] Obviously, we're challenged as an info community, but these are the all the type of things that need to be thought of holistically. And and mayor, I think great call out with respect to the [1:13:58] comprehensive plan. Um, and tying back to Council Member Topia's, you know, comments around this being the right time for all of those reasons. Um, [1:14:06] that's why I think this is really, you know, great discussion that needs to happen. Great. Thank you. [1:14:12] Thanks, Council Livia. [1:14:13] So, a couple points pretty much reiterating but not completely. Um, first of all, I I love BOT and I think it's crucial. This is part of the [1:14:21] comprehensive plan in every way, shape, and form. And in the same way as we may end up having to tweak something if we're totally overridden by the state, [1:14:29] we understand that. But that doesn't mean that in many ways I I hate to say if people are looking at our housing policy because it was so wonderful when [1:14:37] we put it in place and have looked to it as a model and if we bring up different considerations of ways to improve that [1:14:45] so that there is additional inclusivity, affordability, and people able to get off those lists and qualify. It it's [1:14:52] worth studying. It's worth looking at. I think we've identified a a large group and I I'm glad you called out bit about [1:15:00] additional stakeholders because it's the POA and other people who own land, but if we want to encourage development in [1:15:08] Highland Park and we want to encourage affordable housing in Highland Park, they got to talk to each other. And and [1:15:16] so I really think it's a very important time, especially if something's coming down the pike from the state that we have enough knowledge and understanding [1:15:25] or a couple of alternative ways, whether that's lower tier housing, whether that's units versus square footage. [1:15:32] We've, you know, us brainstorming, we've already come up with several things that I think could be helpful to these [1:15:39] groups. So when the professionals coupled with the groups who really focus on this on a daily basis look at it, I think they can run with it and come back [1:15:47] to us with something that may end up just being one or two little tweaks. Um, and I think we have a wonderful policy [1:15:54] and solo cup to me says that that worked within this, but because we don't have that much space and because we see so [1:16:02] much development at such a high level, high dollar level that I will ensure [cough] that we don't lose the ground that we've [1:16:11] made up. And I think that's going to take some creativity to determine how we get those units and that housing. And we [1:16:18] don't want to fall behind. So I want to revisit all of these issues. [1:16:24] Council member Brocklin, thank you. Um, so when I looked at this, I guess my first concern, which has already been mentioned, was what this state was going [1:16:31] to do first. So I mean, I have no problem with housing and PDC looking at this um, you know, probably next year at [1:16:38] the earliest. Um, but I I mean, everything I said in the last meeting was that I know we have an incredible policy in place that people look up to. [1:16:47] I don't I mean they could look at it and and sure all new information is great with what housing comes up with or PDC [1:16:54] etc. so that we could take a look at it but I think we're in a way going backwards until we see what the state comes out with. Um and seems a little [1:17:03] little premature in in my mind is kind of where I'm at. So thank you Coolberg and then couns. Yeah, I I just want to [1:17:12] respond to a couple of points that were made, which is the change in the economy over the last decade. [1:17:20] That doesn't really have any valid meaning to me because over the last decade, we've seen a tremendous amount [1:17:28] of development and developers complying with our inclusionary zoning code that was developed at the beginning of that period of time. The biggest development [1:17:37] is just starting in Highland Park is is the Solo Cup development. Uh that will probably be the largest development in [1:17:44] our history for a long time. Um that says to me that what we have is working. [1:17:52] I I think it is reasonable to determine whether a developer is providing units [1:18:01] at the various levels that [snorts] qualify as inclusionary zoning which which you brought up. Um that's already [1:18:08] an issue within our ordinance that should be bolstered. I think um [1:18:17] inclusionary zoning as I understand it typically is uh creating units that are affordable to people who make between 50% and 125% of the area median income. [1:18:30] Is that approximately correct? [1:18:32] So these are people who have to qualify for a mortgage or have to qualify for a rent. This isn't subsidized. It isn't [1:18:39] free. uh these are people who are contributing significantly to our community in a variety of levels or their own communities and want to live [1:18:48] here but can't otherwise afford to live here. And yes, I agree that a lot of the units are coming in at the higher tranches within that level and we need [1:18:57] to figure out a way to get people who can only afford 50% of the area median income. That's still a pretty big [1:19:04] income. Those are still nice units. Um but that doesn't mean recalculating the [1:19:11] percentage of how units are calculated in relation to the total number of [1:19:18] commercial units. The question that Andrris and I discussed, which I'm eager to have addressed by the housing [1:19:26] commission, is whether a developer who is developing a luxury development, who perhaps could build 10 units based on [1:19:36] the zoning only builds five units because they're very big luxury units. [1:19:41] Should that developer still be responsible for the total number of inclusionary units that developer would have been responsible for if they developed the full 10 units. [1:19:53] That does not require a recalculation of how the total number of inclusionary units required is calculated. We [1:20:02] specifically looked at clarifying that the last goaround 8 or 10 years ago and I do not want to reopen that because [1:20:11] that includes a an overall discussion of a policy of affordable housing. We've [1:20:18] arrived at a percentage calculation that we know developers are comfortable with because they're developing with that [1:20:25] calculation in mind. Um, and the other issue is whether we want to determine [1:20:32] whether the fee and loo ought to be increased. I'm comfortable discussing that. I'm reticent to do that, but I [1:20:40] think it's a reasonable discussion to understand what the economic impacts of that would mean for a developer. We know [1:20:48] definitively that you will get more units if they're built than if a fee and loo is paid for [1:20:56] because the fee and loo can't pay for an entire unit. That's that's too expensive. You won't get as [1:21:03] many units. Um the the goal with that is to get single family housing and scattered housing. And I understand that [1:21:13] it's it's just not that available and you just won't get as many as if a developer actually develops because of [1:21:19] the the economics of of the density bonus. A developer gets to build more units in exchange for having [1:21:28] to make some of those units uh part of the inclusionary uh program. So again, in terms of those [1:21:35] bullet points, I I'm really not comfortable with the first one. I'm I'm okay with the other two and I think that [1:21:43] opens up and addresses the issues that uh Commissioner Tapia raised and and I'd be interested in that. In terms of the [1:21:52] process, whatever is considered ought to be considered by the housing commission after you meet with um the interested [1:21:59] parties and then it should come back here before it goes to the PDC so we can decide what we want to legislate on. I I [1:22:07] think that seems like an appropriate process. [1:22:10] Thank you, Council Member Ross. Um at the last committee of the whole I was [1:22:18] in favor still need to sus out the numbers but in [1:22:27] increasing the fee and loo but understanding really you know what that means rather than just a cross the board [1:22:34] decision on this. Um, I did want to say I like the idea of a one-on-one uh meetings. I take it elected officials [1:22:42] means us uh that uh to to have one-on-one meetings. I think that would be very fruitful. Uh and I also agree uh [1:22:52] that we need more well I'm just going to say that I um feel that the the housing [1:23:00] the affordable housing inclusionary housing program has been you know very successful in the city. Um I think it's [1:23:08] uh certainly a feather in the cap of of the city. We're proud of it. Um and I I don't want to see any uh any reduction. [1:23:16] [cough] uh we we need, you know, more and more affordable. Um uh but I do agree that we need more diversity in [1:23:22] housing stock and um we we are building more affordable housing um including the the 34 units uh at at the Solo Cup site. [1:23:34] Um uh but the vehicles namely the develop the developments and the developers that make that possible um seem to have to [1:23:42] build two and a half to $4 million residences that a large number of people can't afford and um uh I that aren't in [1:23:52] in the you know affordable housing don't don't meet those uh you know standards. [1:23:57] I I am concerned by what I heard during a recent PDC consideration of a development in the CBD central business [1:24:05] district where the commissioners told the developer to go back to the drawing board. uh neither the commissioners nor the their parents or grandparents can [1:24:12] afford the market rate units and um I I think uh you know that that in order to [1:24:22] uh to build these af affordable units and I think they're really important we have to find a way um you know to for [1:24:31] for the the market rate housing to be more accessible um it it has been 10 years and and while I think it has been [1:24:39] highly highly successful, I think it is time to recalibrate. Um I want to be crystal clear uh that I'm not willing to [1:24:48] put our affordable housing program at risk though. Uh what what we come up with cannot mean any units less in in my [1:24:57] opinion. But I uh not I I just feel strongly about that. It it it we we need affordable housing and more of it. Uh, [1:25:06] so I I I do think it could be tweaked and I I I think that um you know a a [1:25:14] decade is is a good point to be be looking at it in in all reasonleness. [1:25:21] Thank you. [1:25:23] So where does that net us out in terms of what we are expecting from the housing commission? Because there are some people who want to see all of this [1:25:31] addressed, some who don't want all of this addressed. Um so mayor what if I may so what I heard at least more than [1:25:39] once [laughter] maybe not the majority um so in terms of the objective the objective is to increase the number of [1:25:47] affordable units and diversity of housing stock maybe period they just put a period after that [1:25:56] because I think the balance of that the evaluation method is that'll come next I think the diversity of housing stock [1:26:04] needs to be part of the one-on-one conversations. I'm not sure everybody around this table fully understands what [1:26:11] is currently available in Highland Park, if that makes sense. And that's not to say that there isn't a need. I just [1:26:20] think we need clarity in terms of section 8, senior affordable, people with disabilities affordable, single family homes versus apartments, on and [1:26:29] on and on. I just think there is a broad range. I'm not sure everybody knows how much of those there is and I think that's an important part of the equation. [1:26:38] Everyone agree. Okay. So then just put a period after affordable units. Period. Sure. [1:26:45] That one's good there. Okay. And then mission. So that's stays as is. Um so we will invite all property owners to meet integrate with the comprehensive plan. [1:26:56] Um review barriers. I've heard twice. [1:27:01] Um, keep an eye on the build act. [1:27:04] Yeah, definitely the state um the state legislation. Um, I think following housing commission, we could definitely come back. I heard one person say that [1:27:11] we could definitely come back after housing commission um to the city council in terms of the meetings and everything. [1:27:19] Is everyone else comfortable with what's on the screen? [1:27:22] Okay. But you were going to add the mayor's suggestion to spell out that it's about the comprehensive plan, too. Yeah, I've got the confidence. [1:27:31] Well, thank you. Yes. And uh the and not just single out the POA, all property owners property owners throughout the city. [1:27:40] Period. [1:27:41] Yep. Invite all property owners to meet, but take out any reference to POA. [1:27:45] I know you don't have it there, but you said it verbally. Oh, okay. [1:27:48] And I think you I think you do want to highlight the zones. I think you want it to be where there would be multif family housing. I think you don't want to invite all property owners cuz then you [1:27:56] have everybody. But you know, you know what I mean? Where there would be multif family housing. [1:28:02] I don't mean to interrupt you council, but I I really think that in light of the work the POA put in and and in light [1:28:10] of the fact that we work with them as an organization, I love if you want to put it uh stakeholders who own property in [1:28:17] certain areas, whatever it is, I have no problem with that. But I think POA needs to be named specifically in this if we're talking about other groups that [1:28:25] have a certain level of knowledge and who've worked on this significantly. [1:28:30] So I I would include PO and beyond. I mean I don't disagree with that, but I I think that they've put in a lot of time and effort. [1:28:45] I'm seeing scrunchy faces around the table. Well, I I kind of feel like like on one hand, I think we we absolutely have appreciated [1:28:53] and acknowledged that they brought this issue to the table. Um, and I know that, you know, that was a tough meeting where [1:29:01] we had sort of a response but no dialogue. I do feel though in the in the [1:29:09] good faith effort if this is what we're trying to achieve that then because somebody isn't part of the POA shouldn't [1:29:16] be a factor that precludes their participation [snorts] and I feel like if we just say property owners who are within districts that are [1:29:25] zoned for multif family housing come you know then then we're saying everybody is equally on this even [1:29:34] playing feel welcome. [clears throat] That's where I'm coming from. I I agree with that. [1:29:40] I, you know, I just think on the one hand, we have our advisory groups, our boards. I know they're separate, but I think that we have given them a certain [1:29:48] level of recognition and they've paid it back. And if anything, they raised this issue to your point, which I think is [1:29:56] correct. And as long as we're including other property owners, I think we acknowledge that work that they've put [1:30:03] in. And I would say just because POA is listed I guess is like if you look at the list of our commissions it is listed [1:30:11] as one. So as long as we have SEA PO I think it is I don't think it is at all leaison because there we stakeholder group. [1:30:21] So there so there are plenty of stakeholders like the chamber. [1:30:24] Yeah. Well, they're not part of the city though, right? PDC, right? [1:30:31] This process should have interested stakeholders. Um, but to single out the [1:30:38] POA would be like singling out a neighborhood interest group. Ironically, there's there's the POA. [1:30:47] There's also a similar group in Ravenia, you know. So, why couldn't we? [1:30:54] Yeah. I mean there the Ravenia neighborhood grew but couldn't we but they don't have a specific I I mean these guys really have a specific [1:31:02] liaison but I guess we could also break it down by I don't know neighborhood neighborhood that's fine but I mean [1:31:10] I'm just looking at what we have on our website and I don't see them listed. I kind of feel like we want to be consistent with our property owners [1:31:18] period within our community if we're trying to achieve this goal and get their input. Um but maybe we're splitting hairs at this point. [1:31:26] I Well, I I think it's important they they are an important group um that are self-governing and that we have a [1:31:34] liaison to and that we try to support and I think they try to support the city, but they're a private organization just like the Revenia Neighbors [1:31:42] Association. Uh at one time there was Yeah, one time there was a Sunset Neighbors Association. Um they're not they're not elected officials. right? [1:31:53] They have private interests. I think that they should have a seat at the table as individuals and uh calling them [1:32:00] out as a particular group as as part of the process. I I don't want to set that [1:32:06] precedent. I guess yeah, I mean I recognize the POA has a special place in this conversation. [1:32:16] And I think they are going to show up when the time comes in a way that's organized and you know they they've and they get credit for uh their research [1:32:26] and the contributions and I think they will continue. I think from a policy perspective and communication perspective we're naming categories [1:32:35] you know we're naming you know property owners property owners advocates residential developers working in HP right advocate maybe should maybe we [1:32:43] should not name name Cup but advocates for affordable housing right you know just get generic and then the invitation list then goes [1:32:52] out to the POA and this group and RBD and all these things are you know you know neighbors association and advocates [1:33:00] such as SEPA I think is our partner. I would have an agreement with SEPHA. So, but you see what I'm saying is that we [1:33:08] let's make I think there's a distinction here between certain entities that we're naming by name and certain entities that we should name [1:33:16] more by but in that we're inclusive of who gets invited. Right. Perfect. Exactly. [1:33:22] And I think then it protects us from any accusation of favoritism. Yeah. Yeah. That would be my concern. Thank you. Okay. [1:33:30] I didn't mean to leave about I'm on the board so I'd like [laughter] Okay. Okay. Just be consistent. [1:33:36] And then in terms of there was kind debate about the first bullet point. Um so perhaps rather than number of on-site units required to be affordable. [1:33:47] Um, again, understanding the objective is just reviewing the calculation method because that's [1:33:54] that's what I'm troubled by because the method is a pretty clear method. Now, you can still insist that a developer build more units. [1:34:06] Sticking with this method, the problem that you and I noticed is when a developer builds fewer market rate [1:34:14] units, under the language, they are obligated to build fewer inclusionary units. Right? [1:34:21] But the calculation as to how many inclusionary units they're required to build is what sets that. And you can use [1:34:28] that current calculation and say we're going to use that calculation based on the number of units that could be built [1:34:36] as opposed to changing the entire percentage process because then you're going to affect nonaffected buildings. [1:34:45] Yes. [1:34:46] You know, I think this is requires a you know economic and MBA finance type of [1:34:55] calculation because You know what I learned in my NBA program is, you know, that pricing is elastic and inelastic and there's [1:35:04] different things that make it elastic and inelastic and and the circumstances what makes something elastic elastic can change depending on the stuff. So I I [1:35:13] think it's fair game if we're saying comprehensive and all stakeholders to look at the finance part in the calculus part because there might be some things [1:35:22] in the percentage that might get it might be discouraging some some developers not all because you're right there's been a lot of development that [1:35:31] if it was just elastic a little bit more they may actually invest more that then creates more units. I don't know that's [1:35:39] the answer. I don't know if if what the answer is there. But I think the question must be asked and to test it because I you know you want the [1:35:47] equilibrium between supply and demand and right now the question for me is could we have more supply [1:35:55] right if it was a little the barrier to entry was just a little bit lower. So not that we want to say oh my gosh you [1:36:04] know we we've lowered it so therefore we have lower units. It's not we lowered it so we sold more. And that's just like any person who's doing ser services and [1:36:12] products knows, you know, quantity versus quality, right? You know, if I can sell more of these, I can lower my price. If we can get more units, maybe [1:36:21] we we can lower the percentage by a little bit and suddenly that we hit that equilibrium. I don't know. But I think we have to ask the question because we're trying to get more units that are affordable in the city. [1:36:31] But that's a different question than the methodology and and that's what I don't want to reopen. [1:36:40] That's what I'm suggesting. We reopen. [1:36:41] We can't answer the question without reopening it. [1:36:44] You you can you can discuss how many units should be built based on different criteria, but [1:36:54] in terms of calculating the percentage of units, that methodology has to remain constant. [1:37:01] There's also the state mandate again that we're trying to reach. [1:37:08] And I think the methodology is one that's not just us but has been used in place right throughout the housing policy world so to speak. [1:37:19] Exactly. And it has to do with whether the percentage of units is calculated based against um the total units um that [1:37:29] could be built or the or what is there after the building is completed and and we so I think again not to not to press [1:37:37] this point and not to interrupt you I apologize. [1:37:40] I think that's where these one-on-one conversations will be helpful if that methodology can be better. I'm looking [1:37:48] at you council member Tapia if that can be better explained. I understand what the end goal is but my feeling is based [1:37:55] on the number of people who are going to be bringing in their policy knowledge and again I'm looking at sea in the back [1:38:03] row I think there's an explanation behind the methodology before we reopen the methodology because it may be a stateofart [1:38:11] kind of way that housing is addressed and maybe you know well maybe car before the horse if was the objective I think we agree is what [1:38:19] are the barriers right let's figure out the barriers now the the calculus might become a might show up as a potential barrier which then [1:38:27] requires some examinities right and and and to that point because we heard about how the people who are not able to access this housing are my [1:38:36] understanding from your explanation GO is that they are earning too much money so they don't qualify for the affordable housing that was that was what Gita was saying. [1:38:48] Okay. I think I think it's the other way. [1:38:52] They're not able to council member was talking about they don't earn enough and Okay. Sorry. Yeah. I'm sorry. That wasn't clear. Thank you. [1:39:00] Just a quick quick comment. [1:39:03] Um I think council member Top is absolutely right, you know, around the finance and economics piece of this which I've tried to say a couple of different times. I think it's okay for [1:39:10] us to acknowledge that the government agencies might not always have the best answer to solutions and sometimes [1:39:19] partnership with private individuals, yes, they're they have their own interests and we have to understand that and take with a grain of salt, have [1:39:26] valuable insight that can help us get to the correct solution. [1:39:31] And so having said that, I I mean I still think that it sounds like people want to open up all these questions and [1:39:39] and perhaps after meeting and learning a little bit more, which I think will behoove all of us, we may feel differently, but I think that there's [1:39:47] consensus that we want to open it up to these questions. [1:39:51] So maybe we need to have our education before we start having policy decisions made, if that makes sense. Like this is complex. Yeah. [1:40:00] And some people have been living in it, sorry, for decades. And others have not. [1:40:04] And I think maybe this can be put on ice. It's important. [1:40:09] It's obviously laudable, but I think we need more understanding before we start making decisions. you [1:40:15] I um I do want to understand the the numbers better and you know I I think [1:40:23] that it behooves us to to have a full uh understanding of of uh the numbers um in [1:40:30] in you know before making any you know decisions about that I I didn't capture [1:40:38] um something that I had asked about which is the number of um units [1:40:45] that would would trigger I mean that's also a zoning issue but the number of [1:40:51] unit right now f five units or or more trigger a the inclusionary housing and [1:41:00] my my question is is that is that the right number to trigger it? Um and and could we have a fuller understanding of what of what number should trigger it? [1:41:11] um you know it it maybe we'd have it you know once once it's triggered it it does make the project more expensive to do. [1:41:22] Um and uh you know if we had you know a slightly higher number threshold [1:41:29] uh higher threshold then you know maybe we've got less expensive projects and and more affordable units being built. [1:41:37] So I'm just asking that we take a look at that. [1:41:41] Okay, you need to leave. We need to take a break. Um, so, so we will recess and come back after the council meeting. [1:41:50] Okay. Yep. [1:41:51] So, I am seeking a Do I have to motion for a recess or I just call a recess? Just call a recess. Call a recess. Thank you.