A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1601-1671 Pearl Street and 524-538 East 17th Avenue. Rezones 1601-1671 Pearl Street & 524-538 East 17th Avenue from C-MX-5, DO-1/C-MX-8, DO-1/C-MS-8, DO-1 to PUD - G15, DO1, in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-23-16.
11 eyes, zero nays. Council Bill 599 has passed. Congratulations. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 624 on the floor? Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill 624 be placed upon final consideration and do pass it. It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved in second to the public here for council. Bill 624 is open. May we have the staff report? A barge. How are you this evening? I'm very well, thank you. Members of council. Good evening. I'm as council president, Burke said a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I'll be presenting an official map amendment. Along Pearl Street, between 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue. There's a range of addresses. And then moving on to slide two. You see that the site is in Council District ten. And on slide three, that it is in the uptown statistical neighborhood. On slide four, the property is 1.44 acres. It's a full half block. And the applicant request is custom zoning based on the CMCs eight zone district, and it would be a planned unit development or PWD. And also they propose to retain the current uptown design overlay idea, one that applies on most of the site. Looking at site five, the zoning on the site in an area is almost exclusively urban centered neighborhood context. On the site, the heights range from 5 to 8 storeys permitted now and the it's in mixed use and main street districts, the surrounding districts are a similar mix. The on slide six, the City Park Natural History Museum view plane applies to this site as it relates to the site. It limits heights to 130 to 135 feet approximately, which is quite a bit less limiting than the existing or proposed zoning. So it it doesn't have have an effect on limiting building height at this time. The on slide seven uptown uptown design overlay d01 applies to most of the site. Now that's the yellow area within the red area, which is the proposed rezoning. And the proposal actually would extend it to apply to the whole site. So it would also include that northern little area there. The design overlay implements additional qualitative design standards and guidelines that are used by staff to review projects in the area. On Slide eight, you see that the those guidelines address considerations like vehicular access, structured parking facades, the design of those facades, architectural scaling, masonry materials, facade transparency. So it's an additional level of review that happens for projects in the area with the intent of ensuring that the higher density projects which will happen throughout uptown as it becomes more and more of an urban residential neighborhood, will have a high quality human scale design. On Slide nine, the existing land use on the site is mostly surface parking. There's also commercial retail, residential and office uses and a mix of similar uses on the surrounding lots. Looking at Slide ten, some photos of the site. The photo on the top is kind of the iconic view of the tavern building there at 17th and Pearl. And a big part of the custom zoning approach that I'll tell you about in just a moment is about retaining that building and the one storey commercial building that you see just to the right of that on the site while allowing for additional redevelopment on the remainder of the site. And then on slide 11, if you look at the lower image, we're looking down Pearl Street, looking east, and there's another big building on the site. That building faces 16th Avenue, that two story residential building. And the planned PWD does not propose to retain that building. On Slide 12, additional details about the rezoning request. It's based on the general building form in the CMCs eight zone district, and then it would add requirements to preserve key features of the two buildings that are defined as remaining buildings, the tavern building and the one story building next door. It varies height limits by sub areas across across the site to redistribute the height entitlement from where those remaining buildings are to the remainder of the site. And it includes some site standards that help differentiate the remaining buildings from new construction. On Slide 13, you see the proposed sub areas and over on the right hand side of Slide 13 in sub area C and D, those are the areas that face 17th Avenue. So Saberi, A D has the tavern building in it and so various C has the other remaining building sub areas. E and F are really set up to help differentiate those buildings from what will happen on the rest of the site, which will be on in some areas A and B and on the next slide side 14 , the image that's towards the bottom of the slide is a three dimensional representation of those sub areas, along with the proposed permitted height in them, which would be starting with the sub area on 16th Avenue is Siberia. A The height limit would be 74 feet and six storeys. It then goes up in the center of the site. In summary, a B to ten stories or 110 feet. 110 feet is the maximum building height on the site now and then the remainder of the sub area is closer to 17th avenue d, e, c, d, e and F. All relate to the preservation and maintenance of those remaining buildings limiting height in Siberia, C and D to the parapet, height of those existing buildings. And then in summary, E, which wraps around the tavern building, the height is limited to one story, so it would actually drop down before going up again to to the redevelopment area in the center of the site. On Slide 15, there's some variation in required build to and setbacks from the underlying zoning on most of the site server's avian seats. ABC Andy. It would be the same as the CMCs eight zone district, but in summary, E and F the build to and setbacks are varied to help differentiate the remaining buildings. And so there's actually a small setback so that as you walk along the street, the buildings will set back just as you pass the remaining building before coming back to the sidewalk edge where the new development is happening. An important part of the PD. This is slide 16. There are. There's a two page spread of tables. There's one for each of the two remaining buildings which outline the key features that must be retained in those buildings. And on Slide 17, there's just a really high level summary of what those tables include, is that on the most visible area of the facades of those buildings, which of course includes the street facing facades facing Pearl Street and facing 17th Avenue, as well as the most visible part of some of the side facades. The PD directs preservation of the brick facades themselves the cornice, the brick parapet, the chamfered corner configuration on the tavern building. Then there's also a secondary area of facade defined that is a visible area of side facades. So for example, the side facing second floor of the tavern building will remain visible after redevelopment because the height limit right next to it will be one story as the building steps down. And there there's a little bit more flexibility that the brick facade would have to be retained, but new window openings could be placed in that in that facade. And then on Slide 18, just to show you, there's an attachment to the PD that includes as built drawings of those remaining buildings. So that we clearly know right now where all of those elements are and what their dimensions are so that they can be retained in the future, like the the cornice and the existing window openings . On Slide 19. The process to date has included communication with the wide range of Arnaud's that are adjacent or near the site. And then on Slide 20. Just list the key process dates up until this hearing. And for each of the previous meetings, the planning board hearing, the delivery committee meeting and this hearing the Arnaud's listed on the previous slide were notified and signs were posted on the site for planning board and for the City Council hearing for public comments. We've received two written comments. Both are letters of support. Capitol Hill United Neighborhood actually helped organize a neighborhood assembly with Uptown on the Hill, Swallow Hill, historic Denver and the applicant team. And at that neighborhood assembly, attendees voted unanimously to support the planned unit development concept for this site. And then Chun has also just sent in an email of clarification saying that they do support the height that's proposed at the 16th Avenue end of the site as well. At the planning board hearing. Two speakers spoke in favor of the application. On Slide 22, looking at the review criteria for considering a rezoning, the first consistency with adopted plans. Slide 23 is Comprehensive Plan 2000, which recommends conserving land by promoting infill development consistent with neighborhood character, investing in a range of housing types and services, and promoting sustainable centers with jobs and housing near transit. On Slide 24 Blueprint, Denver designates the site with the concept land use of mixed use and the entire site and surrounding areas within an area of change where Blueprint Denver foresees most of the city's future growth. On Slide 25, the adjoining street 17th Avenue is a mixed use arterial, and Pearl Street and 16th Avenue are local streets. The Uptown Neighborhood Plan. This is slide 26, also applies to the street, to the site. It's an older plan from 1986, supports mixed uses in this location. It talks about there being a distinction in height and bulk between downtown and the uptown area where the site is located. And that existing development pattern should be referenced to establish an appropriate pattern of scale in bulk that encourages continuity of historic character. And then the diagram that you're seeing at the bottom of this slide is a diagram of heights that are permitted by the Natural History Museum, City Park View Plane, and it's just included there because the plan says that closer to downtown, it's really that the heights that are permitted by that view plane are the appropriate maximum heights . And then it says it should step down further than that, moving into the neighborhood where the proposed rezoning is located between Pennsylvania and Park Avenue. And just to note, that's where the proposed rezoning is. Locating the view plan would permit 136 feet, and the maximum proposed height is 110 feet. So KPD finds that the proposed PD is consistent with applicable adopted plans in terms of uniformity of district regulations. The next criteria on slide 27, we find that it would result in uniform application of district building form use design and design regulations across the site that the proposed rezoning furthers the public health, safety and welfare, primarily by implementing adopted land use plans. On slight Slide 28, we look at the justifying circumstances criteria for a MAP amendment. The applicant has indicated justifying circumstance of changed conditions. You know, clearly this is an area that has and will continue to undergo quite a bit of change. Looking at Slide 29, there are two images and it's just really interesting to see that the image on the left from 1933, it might be a little hard to see, but the the neighborhood is is pretty filled in. There's lots of buildings. It's a high density, vibrant neighborhood. In 1933, fast forward to 2014, mostly surface parking. So we're moving back towards 1933 in terms of what kind of neighborhood this will be on slide 30, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The proposed underlying zone district is in the urban center neighborhood context, which is consistent with this area, as is the general building form in the CMCs eight zone district. And then on Slide 31, just looking at additional criteria that apply to use of a planned unit development. So as you know, it's CPD policy to use base zone districts whenever they can get the desired result on a site. However, there are exceptions. We believe this is one. The zoning code talks about the unique and extraordinary circumstance, justifying use of APD as being where a customized zoning approach is necessary to protect and preserve the character of a historic structure or history or historic district. It's my understanding that those two buildings that are defined as remaining buildings probably would not qualify for local landmark designation. And we have a pretty high bar here. However, you know, they're well-loved buildings in the neighborhood. And it's also possible that the 17th Avenue corridor would actually qualify as a historic district. And if so, those would be contributing buildings in the historic district, which would protect them. However, that's a that's a long process that would involve a lot of a lot of the neighborhood. And so in terms of protecting and saving those buildings now, I think this is a unique and extraordinary circumstance justifying the use of this of the PD to protect the buildings. So on Slide 32, CPD recommends approval of the Map Amendment application based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Great. Thank you. Tonight, we have five speakers on Council Bill 624. I'm going to just call the first five speakers. So Michael McNally, Josh Larimer, Sean Maley, Andy Lewicki, Tom Dragonet. You each have 3 minutes. Come on up to the front. Michael McNally and with Sutherland Company, the owner and developer and the applicant in this case. I want to thank Council President, council members for your time tonight and for hearing this. This application. I'll give you a quick history on this project. In the spring of 2015, we identified this site and started working with with the landowner and with our architects to do our due diligence, put the land under contract, started to figure out what we could do here when it's so far that we went through the landmark process and were granted the rights to pursue the permits. We actually went through a key concept plan and actually got approval for the initial plan. We then closed on the land. I guess the press release with the Yellen closing sparked some community interest and from historic Denver and the surrounding neighborhoods about the saving the building. And so they approached us. We stopped. We met with them, had several meetings. And, you know, shame on us for maybe not being as sensitive and realizing the nature of those buildings. But we quickly listened. And I like to think that that's the kind of developer we are that. Will stop and. And listen to the community and and understand what's going on and see if we can find solutions. So we we quickly engaged with the neighborhood and had several meetings, several large format meetings, as well as over 20. Individual meetings with. Neighbors and constituents in the area. We studied many options. Historic Denver and other people even suggested maybe even adding more height. But we were very focused on trying to come in and stay under that 1/10 height limit. We felt that that was the appropriate height and massing there. So after several months of working in design, we we came up with this option that you see today. And it's a long story, but a year and a half later, we feel that with the preservation agreement that we have in place for the historic Denver, that any events he can can highlight more for you. When she speaks the rezoning process with the PD, we're able to to kind of come in and keep everything at the respective height limits, but figure out how to take what was up on the street where the tavern was and pull it to the back. And we we feel like at the end of the day, it's been a great public private partnership. It's taken a while, but at the end of the day, we have a better product and we're excited about this project. I'd like to thank Councilman Knew for his support and helped her in this process. The city staff historic Denver shine swallow hill uptown on the hill our many neighbors it's it's been a it's been a challenging yet rewarding process that we've been through. And we're excited to hopefully see this project advance. I'm available for questions if you have any. Thank you, Mr. McNally. Josh Larimer. Hello. My name is Josh Larimer. I am with Shears Adkins Rockmore. Architects at 1550 Wynkoop. I don't have a statement, but I'm available for questions. Thank you, Miss Larimer. Sharmila. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Shaun Maley. Address to 1660 Lincoln. And I've been working with Michael and Southern Land Company on this rezoning and outreach process. I'll keep my remarks very brief tonight and be here to answer any questions, but just wanted to make note of a few additional items. Again, this conversation started about 18 months ago when Southern Land began meeting with historic Denver Councilman New and other folks from the neighborhood regarding the tavern building in the site. And I want to give kudos to historic Denver, all the neighborhood groups and my client Southern Land as all parties worked extremely hard to get this project from the initial approved concept plan to the pretty concept that's before you tonight. I also want to commend city staff and CPD for all their hard work and their willingness to roll up the sleeves and work on this party with us. I know that parties have not been the mode of choice for zoning projects lately, but the ability to customize the zoning was absolutely essential to make this project possible. Also, just wanted to note the extreme lengths we've gone to to not only work with the neighborhood organizations, but every adjacent owner to this site. There's well in excess of 20 owners. And we've had. Meetings for. 12 to 18 months with every single property owner to make them aware of this project in every regard from the zoning, the preservation agreement, parking both on street and off street utilities, construction, logistics, timing, etc.. So again, we're very happy. To be here tonight. With this rezoning before you and I'm here for any questions. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Reilly. Annie Levinsky. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver. And we're looking at 1420 Ogden Street. And I'm glad to be here tonight on behalf of our Board of Trustees to support this rezoning at 17th and Pearl from the CMC's eight and CMA x five to the Peabody. This rezoning did come about as well as has been mentioned as a result of our negotiations with SLC as the site owner to preserve the 116 year old streetcar commercial building that sits on the corner of 17th and Pearl and its adjacent one story addition. The building which we've all come to call the Tavern Building, is part of a series of important streetcar commercial buildings that line this section of 17th in the summer of 2015, when news of the plans to demolish the buildings broke. We did start hearing from a lot of community members. It was actually the most active social media outcry we've had and within a few days we had garnered 1700 signatures on a petition that we quickly cobbled together. And when I reached out to Southern Land Company, to their credit, they were very receptive to the conversation and willing to talk about it. And so I definitely want to express our gratitude for them for being so open and to working with us over the course of last summer. In the meetings, they mentioned to come up with a solution on how to develop all the adjacent vacant land and those parking lots that we hate to see, but also to preserve what was special about this particular location. And we it's, as has been noted, the preservation it accomplishes, I think, to desire goals of the preservation as well as maintain the same level of density as originally proposed for the project. In addition to the SLC has agreed to execute a second more detailed preservation agreement with historic Denver if the rezoning is approved, the additional agreement has already been drafted and provides guidance on changes that will be made to the building and will ensure its protection long into the future. Well, after the buildings, the new building is constructed, this solution, involving both the rezoning and the preservation agreement, were presented at the community meeting by Chan back in February of 2016. At that meeting was well attended and there was unanimous support for the concept. And as noted, Chan, who could not be here this evening, also sent a letter of support to you last week. So again, we are really grateful to Southern Land Company for their willingness to work on this. Also appreciate the leadership of Councilman Nu and the city staff and the whole team. It's been, I think, a great case study in how these situations can be resolved. And we really hope that this project will become a case study in how the old and the new in our city don't have to be in conflict, but can work together to make Denver an enduring city. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Lewinsky. Tom Reagan. Any. I'm writing 8950 17th Street lawyer for Southern Land. And I'm here to answer questions of any. Come up that require my answer. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Councilman Espinosa. It's clearing us out. Yeah, I just saw that. I have Espinosa first and then Cain each. So don't care who answers it. I may have missed it. Is the building currently or planned to be a landmark structure or is it not? The 17. The one on 17. So no. None of the buildings on the site are currently landmark structures. And is it probable that none of them would actually meet the criteria for individual designation? Um, maybe a little bit too far back in the history of Denver, but do you know why those buildings weren't part of the urban renewal that sort of created the season of parking lots that we have there? I don't know. And plus one of the other speakers does, you know, I mean, we obviously lost a lot of buildings in the area and along that corridor, and some of them dodged the bullet putting these two buildings. All right. Thanks. No further questions. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinch and then Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. A question for you. Obviously, a good kumbayah found a common ground story, but I am a little nervous about the level of detail on the slide you showed with the corners and the windows and the turrets. In a landmark situation, if you needed to do new windows or technology changed, you had someone you could go to. I'm nervous about whether or not, you know, the simplest thing would work. I mean, we've run into this before with Pewds, where you have to get a rezoning because your door breaks, you know. So is there a process like that in the zoning realm that will avoid this coming back to council if something minor changes? I mean, I just I'm just curious about the level of detail. Yeah. There is quite a bit of detail on the one side looking at the as built drawings, which are an attachment to the PDA. And yet the intention is we had a lot of discussion about that and developing the PD that the basic standards in the PD list the the just only the most important key features to retain like the cornice and the the window openings. The as built drawings include additional detail about quite a few things, but really they're just there as a reference so that if there's some question about where's the cornice and is this replacement similar to the original, that we have a reference point for answering those questions. But the Pudi isn't structured in a way that says that those sheets those as built a define what can happen there's a there's a broader range of things that can happen and those are just reference to that basically. Got it. And if there is a question, however, who does it go to? The zoning administrator? Who's the person who helps to answer those kinds of questions? I mean, it's it's an awkward place to do. I'm glad we're doing what we're doing is trying to be clear. But is there is there an administrative level where those questions will get answered? Right. So, you know, when we have challenges with zoning questions, there's a technical team that includes the zoning administrator that helps look at those things. And in a case like this, we bring in landmark planners to who, you know, understand the terminology and the architectural features that we're talking about. But we did very intentionally write it in consultation with the zoning staff so that it's it's written in a way that they can understand and really what's in the base. PD just has a few basic preservation objectives in the form of those key features to protect, and then the height limits that are set at the height limits of the buildings. Okay, got it. Thanks. And then one question for Annie Levinsky, please. The corner building makes a lot of sense to me. It's notable I had to look up a picture of the one story building next door. It's not memorable. Why? Why is that included? Especially being one story in an area where we're putting more density. We talked about that back and forth a lot. Our primary focus had been the two storey building, but also very much emphasizing the pedestrian scale of 17th. And part of what makes that scale special is the the street wall that's created there and that is consistent for we have gaps in it because of the surface parking. But where you don't have separate for service parking, you have one and two storey buildings along this part of the corridor. And so in talking to Southern Land, they agreed that they were willing to protect that it provides sort of a buffer and a transitional area to the larger project. But I'm not I can't recall exactly the level, the language in the PD, but in our preservation agreement there is quite a bit more latitude on the one story building because there's not as much original fabric. So it's really maintaining the scale and the street while there, but not as much because it is not a detailed building . Super. Thank you so much. Thank you. Councilman, can each. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I for first, I want to congratulate and thank all the players here from Southern Land and councilman knew and the community for coming up with a real creative solution to this. I think we've all been reading some of the stories that have occurred and whatnot. But I'm very I'm curious about one thing, just as a. Matter of curiosity. Sub area E is has a 16 from Abe. Maybe you can address this sub area e is a. Once has a one. Story 16 foot limit on it and it's kind of L-shaped between other suburbs. I'm just curious, what's the what's the purpose of that? So the purpose of that sub area. So Councilman Flynn is talking about severely wrapping around Siberia d there is to differentiate the remaining building, the tavern building from the new construction that will happen the bigger new construction that will happen adjacent. And so this is a preservation principle to help, you know, differentiate the old or historic. From the new. And what's happening here is that the height will drop down because there's that low height limit and it'll be like a connector building and then the height will go way back up again. That connector building will also step in because you'll see that Subrip E is the only sub area that has setback requirements. Okay. Right. So Sudbury is all about differentiation. It actually sounds very interesting, but I'm just curious why it was lower than even D and and C. Right. So the buildings that it helps the tavern building separate from the new construction. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Gilmore, did you pop out of there? No, thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn asked my question. I get that synergy. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, are you back. Up to more? Yep. Sorry. Actually, that's sort of interesting that you so very e would exist because they could have had a building. The sort of I don't know. It was wasn't unusual for those buildings to be smacked up against one another in that context. So along those lines, though, was there ever a conversation about doing some sort of encroachment on top of the building? ALA What we just did with the Emily Griffith Center. You know. I actually inherited this case from Tim Watkins, so I wasn't around for the early part of the process. Do any of you. Remember discussion of. Something coming. We definitely looked at several options, some some of them included, maybe cantilevered over the existing structures. But when everything was weighed out, I think context and massing, we wanted to respect those those existing structures. The experience along 17th, as Andy noted, can leverage can get expensive. So we found that we we could get the net rentable that the project needed with the, you know, the additional storeys within the existing height limits. So that's where we focused and tried to stay off those buildings as much as possible. Yeah, there's a, there's a fringe benefit in that a little more daylight into that area for a longer period of time. So there's it's it's overall a good thing. One other question was, was there ever a discussion in determination along something along the lines what we do with conservation overlays, where we would have sort of compelled work on on that in some areas D or so very easy to go through landmark design review and just simply leave it at that and say here's where we're working. But in that context, you're going to have a mandatory designer view. Yes. So thank you for the question, Councilman. In a conservation overlay, we actually wouldn't do that. Typically, you know, the intent is that when something is a historic landmark, it is designated, you know, either individually or in a district. And that that's clearly when the preservation system applies and things go through preservation review at the Landmark Commission or other commissions in situations like this or like in a conservation overlay district where the desire is just to promote a compatible new development that's compatible with a certain character, we would try to define things in a way that's simpler and more quantitative than in a preservation situation. And so we did sort of steer clear of the idea that alterations to those buildings would be reviewed by the Landmark Commission, say, or even specifically by landmark staff. Just to just to clarify that boundary, you know, that they are not designated. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Members of Council. Okay, great. This concludes our questions and comments by members of Council. Uh, Councilman new? Yes. I want to thank. Southern Land Company. This what a great project that you're putting together in the area. We're trying to promote greater of residential development and and the retail, but also preserving the historic building, you know. You know, you go you over that tavern you really appreciate it is sort of a cute little thing. And and it's going to be a great addition. To that area. And I'm so. Glad we're we're saving. It. So it was an excellent project that you put together and and a good example. Of using. The PUD as a as a to I like that. I to several. Meetings and listening and was something that you emphasized Michael it is so true. We had so much discussion in area all the Southern land people and representatives and architects listen to residents in the community about what they wanted and what they wanted to save and what they thought. Was good for their community. So I really appreciate appreciate that. And and it's really a model for how I think I don't know who mentioned it, but it could be a model for how we go forward showing collaboration between developers and the community. So it was a really a great project and I really appreciate all you've done and I'm really proud to support this project and this whole redevelopment that we're doing in Colfax, in North Capitol Hill. And I also invite all my colleagues. To go and get. A great hamburger sandwich and beer at this tavern is just wonderful. Too. So we'll have to convene over there one night. But congratulations and I think you'll be a wonderful project for the community. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just it's a pleasure, actually, to be voting on something like this. So I want to thank the owner. I want to thank CPD for four for reaching into the party box and finding out that there's a really terrific tool that we have in order to reach this sort of compromise. I want to thank the community and historic Denver for being involved in that dialog and for everybody finding consensus. Because, you know, this is what that tools for when you have something that defines the sort of character of an area, you know, and we have the means and the in the right developer with the wherewithal to make that happen. It's really nice to see that we can end up in this forum with a solution. So I'm sorry that it may have been some teeth pulling in in a struggle to get there, but I think where you've ended up is in a really good place. And I think Denver's better will be better generations ahead of now when we're long gone, basically seeing that marriage of what you've what you had and what you're going to do. So thank you. And I thank you CPD staff as well. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I'll just you know the comments. I'll just make a couple of comments. Councilman knew this was in my district for four years and then you stole it at just the right time. Just when it was it was getting heated up in the in the neighborhood. This is something that I'm supportive of. Good job. Both all three sides, the city and our governor and also the developer, I think I think is great. The comments I actually want to make have to do with our notification of neighborhoods. So this is actually a you can take this back to your boss and Gabby, you can take this to the mayor's office. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that the points, the five points historical redevelopment court was on the required neighborhood. I mean, that is 15, ten, 12 blocks away. And they could care less about this project or where it is. And also, you know, Colfax Business Improvement District is is on this as well. So I've been saying this for like five, six years, maybe five years that we need to look at our neighborhood notification and make sure it's accurate, make sure neighborhoods aren't defunct because that list was about 12 to 15 and that's a lot. So anyway. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Rocco. New Ortega. I. Sassaman. I Black Eye. Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Cashin. Carnage. Mr. President. I please close the voting. Announce the results. A Lebanese. 11 eyes. We keep looking at councilman lopez. 11 Eyes Council Bill 624 has passed. Congratulations. Good work, guys. All right, Councilwoman Black, the last bill. Can you please put it on council? Bill 752 on the floor.