A bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the 2015 Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Bundle #1 comprised of multiple clarifying changes to the text of the Denver Zoning Code (DZC). IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.  
Thank you, Madam President. And good evening. Hours of counsel. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I'm the project manager for this Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment, the 2015 Text Amendment Bundle Number one. I also want to acknowledge that unlike the map amendments, this text amendment endeavors are multi staff projects and I've had a vast team helping me out throughout this whole project. A few of them are in the room tonight. I'd like to acknowledge a barge Tina Axelrod and Jill Jennings Gorelick and a number of others who weren't able to be here tonight. This text amendment is being promulgated by the Department of Community Planning and Development as part of our ongoing effort to keep the zoning code modern, clear up to date and user friendly. So the Department is proposing this amendment. It's the last bundle package we did was 15 months ago, in April of 2014. We periodically review how the code is working and prioritize potential updates in response to feedback that we get largely from customers in the development services experience, reviewing applications and working with folks at the counter and performing inspections in the field. We also receive community and neighborhood feedback throughout the year and we also seek to keep the code up to date as industries change around us. So a lot of the updates that are in this package come in direct response to that feedback that we receive from customers and Denver residents. It's also an extensive public involvement and process that's involved with all of our text amendments. We kicked it off publicly in February of this year with the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee briefing. This is an opportunity for the zoning and planning representatives from many of the registered neighborhood organizations around the city to come together as part of and see and talk with staff and dialog about what would go in the amendment before words are even put to paper. So we went out there on February 28th, talked about the issues that we'd heard as potential items and received feedback there, and took that feedback to then develop a summary of the text amendments that we posted in March, which we then delivered to at a briefing of the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee of City Council, as well as the Planning Board and Information Item. Then we took all of the feedback that we received in those briefings to produce a red line draft at the end of March, which was published on March 30th , and also sent out to all registered neighborhood organizations and city council members. Because a lot of folks like to dialog with staff and help and get some better understanding of how a particular amendment would affect them or their project or their home, or is an issue of concern to them. We we offer public office hours when we do text amendments. So we held three sessions in the Wellington Webb building at different times of the day, on different days of the week, to be able to attract folks who have different schedules. And so we did those in the first half of April of 2015 and then and then we create with that feedback, we, we redrafted and put together a draft for the planning board. We provided notice again to all RINO's and City Council members of a planning board. Public hearing produced a new draft for the planning board and held a public hearing at the Planning Board on April 29th. Following that and the feedback we received from Planning Board, we provided notice of a scheduled Neighborhoods and Planning Committee meeting and released a new draft for that committee online on May 7th and then went to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee meeting again on May the 13th. That was followed by a City Council first reading and publication, an email notice of a city council scheduled public hearing that was originally scheduled for two weeks ago. And then three weeks ago, on June the eighth, City Council amended the bill on the floor, ordered it republished, which we did. It was republished. A notice was again provided to registered neighborhood organizations and city council members of tonight's public hearing, the final public hearing for this June the 29th. And I'll talk about the amendment in a little bit. We also did a number of other outreach components that aren't part of the code, but, you know, help broadcast the word about the text amendment through committees, email newsletters that we invite folks to sign up on, on our website, our Twitter account. And we also held a one on one meetings additionally on request with various parties who are interested in our work. In your packets. There were nine written comments provided at the time of the staff report and another one was received over the weekend and uploaded by City Council staff today providing written comment. And generally a few of the folks are here tonight who provided written comments. I won't speak for them. Their comments ranged from encouraging some of the content that's in the code to encouraging improved street level active use requirements that you'll see in many of our own districts now correcting the many storage parking requirement corrections to how we treat certain kinds of homeless shelters in the code. One comment thanking the city for collaborating on the new marijuana extraction rules. There was a comment regarding the clarifications we're doing on step back encroachments. And then there was comments related to the effective date for pipeline projects, and that's what resulted in the amendment a few weeks ago. So let me speak briefly to the amendment. The amended bill or amended the bill that had been originally filed in order to address projects that are already in the review pipeline. And so what that amendment did, the council passed on June the eighth was to allow any formal site development plan application that we receive this week before the new code goes into effect. By the end of this this work week, that anyone who's in the door with us with a formal site plan application can can make the choice of whether to remain under the current zoning code or if it's to their benefit. And they want to they can have review under the new code that will if they if the code is adopted tonight. And and so that will allow those folks who choose to remain under the current code another six months to go through the review process, get any approvals they might need, and seek that approval by January 4th of 2016, and thus avoid the need for a potential rereview of a component of their plan if they've already been in the door with us. So that's in the bill tonight. The Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Bundle addresses a wide variety of topics the kind of eight groups overall that are addressed in the summary that was included in your packet. They include general provisions. The talk about how we identify zone districts, zone lots and number of uses, zone lot. They address the neighborhood context design standards. So these are our building form standards found throughout the code. They also have to do with general design standards. So site development standards that apply throughout the different neighborhood contexts such as landscaping, parking. We are proposing a few changes relative to parking, both bicycle and vehicle parking. There are some changes in how uses are addressed in the code, which includes use limitations. There are some clarifications to zoning procedures and I'll hit the highlights here in a second. We have changes to the rules of measurement and definitions for how how terms are defined and how things are measured in the code. And then we have some clarifications and corrections that we make throughout the entire code. And I'll just hit some of the highlights that address, specifically the comments that you received and and that kind of are getting the most attention that the most substantive parts of this code. The first is that we're codifying CPD's practice of providing earlier notification to registered neighborhood organizations when a rezoning or a zone map amendment is submitted. So for about a year now, we've been doing that by policy of the executive director, and that will now be in code that when we receive a complete application upon receipt of that application, we will provide notice to the registered neighborhood organizations and city council members. So that's now going to be part of our code. We're updating our bicycle parking standards to add new bicycle parking standards for a few uses that don't have them. Today, most users in the city already have a minimum bicycle parking requirement for new development and additions, and this will increase the number of uses that are subject to those standards. We'll also rightsize a couple of the bicycle parking standards that we got wrong that we've learned from five years of experience with the Denver zoning code. We're also rightsizing the mini store to vehicle parking requirement, which was accidentally, inadvertently increased throughout most of the city when we converted. One way of measuring parking in the former Chapter 59 old zoning code to the new Denver zoning code. So we think we've got that right. Finally, we're proposing changes to street level activation to significantly increase the requirement for street level active uses in our most urban mixed use and main street districts. And this includes new incentives for activation of parking structures, which will add new incentives for folks who want to do the right thing on the street level or on all street facing facades to allow them to provide additional onsite parking if they so choose. We have new rules included in this that are companion to a licensing bill that you passed earlier tonight in zoning for how we deal with marijuana extractions, as we've learned from our experience regulating that. So those are now in this text amendment bundle. And then we have a variety of organization, graphics and corrections that we've made throughout the code. I'm happy to dialog further, more specifically on any topic that you may be interested interested in talking more about, because we've had so many briefings. I haven't teed up all of them here tonight in respect to the future hearings you'll have tonight. But I have a lot more content behind this presentation, if there are any in particular you'd like to dialog further about. So there are three review criteria in the Denver zoning code for a text amendment. The first is that it needs to be consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. The second is that it needs to further the public health, safety and general welfare. And the third is that it will result in regulations that are uniform. And we reviewed this, the text amendment against all three review criteria and find that it meets it. It directly implements the comprehensive plan 2000 policies relative to ensuring that we have a Denver zoning ordinance that is flexible, that it comments accommodates current and future land use needs, that identifies community issues and targets those concerns with appropriate controls and incentives. So this is directly in line with the city's adopted plans regarding keeping our zoning ordinance up to date. It furthers the public health and safety and general welfare of our residents or land owners or business owners. By providing clarity and predictability in our zoning rules, by removing barriers to planned and desired development, and by overall continuing to implement our adopted plans. And then it will result in regulations that are uniform within each zone district. And because it's making improvements to how we administer the code, it will help improve the city's ability to administer uniformly the code with projects. So again, we find that it meets all three review criteria. As I mentioned, the planning board held a public hearing on April 29th. They took testimony there that unanimously recommended approval of this with three conditions to make some revisions in those earlier drafts, which we had recommended. And all those revisions were made and are included in the draft that is before you tonight. And so with that, we recommend that tonight City Council approve this text amendment. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. We have three speakers this evening. Signed up to testify on behalf of Council Bill 298. Please come to the front bench right behind the podium when I call your name. The first speaker is Heather Noyes. Great. Second speaker. Hey, Hank. Happy, sappy. And the third speaker is Dave Decker. Good evening. Can I should I start? Mm hmm. Hi. My name is Heather Noyes. Greg. I live at 4492 Xavier Street. I'm a 24 year old resident. Of Berkeley Park. I'm a small business owner on Tennyson Street. My business is studio CPG. We're certified WBEZ by the city and county of Denver. I have two children at Skinner Denver Public Schools. I'm active with our R.A. I serve on the City School Goals Committee. I serve on DPS Goals Committee. And I tell you this because I care passionately about my neighborhood and our city, and I urge you to vote in favor of the text amendment. Tonight, I want to thank Kyle Dalton and a barge who have spent a significant amount of time in our neighborhood looking at development impacts and listening to our neighbors. I want to thank Evelyn Baker, who's walked our streets over there and also spoken with a group of neighbors, and especially Councilwoman Sheppard, who has spent significant time also walking and talking and listening and a heartfelt thanks to you for your efforts. I have two issues or items I'd like to bring to your attention with respect to these proposed changes in the zoning code. I do believe it's a huge step forward. However, I believe that activation of impact zone districts at street level, the 40% activation in the bundle, number one, doesn't go far enough. It's a baby step. This city is investing millions and millions of dollars in streetscape improvements, starting with Tennyson Street, two and a half million dollars. Brighton Boulevard $47 million, East Colfax, West Colfax, many, many other projects too numerous to mention. And I believe that the city should leverage this taxpayer's investment and not allow the automobile to be the dominant use at street level in the max zone. District's 40% activation requirement is great, but that means 60% is left and can be used as parking. And I just think this is really unfortunate and a huge, huge missed opportunity. If we're going to make a change, let's do it right and let's really, you know, put a stamp on this and leverage taxpayers investment. My second my second issue and I have a tape measure, but I'm not going to roll it out. The depth of activated space is limited to 15 feet. I do not believe that's a functional space. Many people have said there's an economic issue associated with how deep you make an activated space. Councilwoman Sheppard and can each have been in my office 15 feet in my office? Gets you two desks, no restroom, no storage, no lobby, nothing in with my retail co-op cohorts and compatriots on Heather Street. Heather, your time. It's just not deep enough. Thank you. That's all I had to say. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. Our next speaker is Hank Saifi. If I didn't pronounce it right. Hank, say. As extreme as I'm at 250 Jersey Street in Denver. And I'm here to support the text amendments that are happening, especially concerning the self-storage parking that we've developed here. And I can answer any questions, but I just support what they've done. Thank you. Thank you. Our final speaker is Dave Decker. Good evening. My name is Dave Decker. I am at 4258 Tennyson Street in Denver. I'm here on behalf of. Berkeley, Regis, United Neighbors. It's the R.A. up on that represents Tennyson Street. We've been working on this issue. For well over a year. We had a public meeting last February. We had well over 100 people and. About 800 written comments, many of which discussed new development, residential and commercial. And what what the kind of the take away from it is. There are some really great things about Tennyson. Street, but it could be said about many commercial streets in Denver. They're walkable, they're friendly, they're active. And what we've found with some of the new construction that it's happening is they're turning their backs to the street. They're using it as parking. They're putting the windows on the sides and the front doors and the sides of the buildings, but that doesn't activate the street. So what we have this great attribute of our commercial streets and Denver and that they're friendly and they're walkable. But in the new construction, people are concerned that we were losing that. So what we did is we we and Heather mentioned this earlier. We we had a meeting with Councilwoman Shepherd and she. Engaged the help of the planning office. Planner level and Baker. And also we've gotten help from Karl Dalton and a barge. They've done a wonderful, wonderful job educating the R.A. about what can be done. They let us know about this process and we're in full support of it. We our board took a vote. It passed 8 to 1 to support this tax amendment, mainly to adding the design standards, to revising the parking requirements, and to require those active, active street users. Again, like Heather said, we strongly support the passage of. This amendment and I do appreciate the time. I apologize for my appearance. But getting around on crutches in about I'm a little bit more concerned about comfort right now. But and if you have any questions, be free to answer them. Well, thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask Colonel Dalton to come back to the microphone, please. Got a couple of questions for you. In my perusing of the document. I didn't see anything that deals with the. The whether there was discussion about. Continuing to do the general development plans, the way they're being done now in in a wounded clarification on whether or not there's a size of a project that requires a general development plan. So can you can you speak to that? Sure. Yeah. So this text the moment does not propose any changes to the current general development plan rules. As I mentioned, you know, the process started many months ago. And at that time, we are still engaged in a task force with many community members and developers and staff. And so we didn't want to preempt the outcome of that process with amendments in this text amendment bundle. So there is nothing in this text amendment bundle to change the world or develop general development plans. I think we'll need to revisit that now that most of the task force work is completed in the future bundle. But again, because this started so long ago and that was going on, we didn't want to preempt that work. Okay. And then for the parking, I saw that you were adding or the department has added language that makes it more convenient and easier to have bike parking. And I heard the speaker loud and clear, Heather, when you were talking about the concern about too much parking. But I guess I'm looking at some of the larger developments where some of these commercial corridors are not on a transportation line. Were there any changes to parking criteria or that was pretty much left intact as well. For bicycle parking, specifically. For vehicle. Not bicycle parking for for cars, for large developments that go into these commercial corridors. Yeah. So there are no changes proposed to the minimum vehicle parking ratio, you know, onsite vehicle parking ratios. And as part of this bundle, other than the reduction in the vehicle parking requirement for many storage facilities, which, you know, are sometimes located on those commercial corridors and sometimes not. But that's the only change to vehicle parking ratios in the code. We're also clarifying how you can take the existing reductions that are in the code. In. Alternatives, so you know about making sure folks don't double count reductions or clarifying that. But but there aren't substantive changes to vehicle parking. Madam Chair, I have two more questions. May I continue? The next one is about zero escaping under the landscaping. I didn't see that we're encouraging more zero escaping as we were experiencing an unusual year this year because of the kind of rain we had. But, you know, in the past few years, we have had some serious watering restrictions. And so I want to know how that particular issue was dealt with or was it not at all? Sure. Yeah. It's a great question. That was not part of the scope of this text amendment. So we did not begin a community conversation about adding zero escaping requirements in the code. Okay. And then my last question is about whether or not there was anything that came up about allowable locations for food trucks. I know there was supposed to be a task force started to deal with this issue, and that hasn't happened. But I don't know if that was something that came up during this process. So no. Again, thanks for the question. There are no changes proposed in this text amendment relative to food trucks in particular, I think. You know, when we saw the the resurgence of them a few years ago, we got together with some of the other departments and created a food truck guide to help folks navigate the city's current regulations better. And and that really helped folks know where they needed to go and when what the rules are. So there are no changes proposed as part of this text amount to the current rules. Well, I'm sorry, I do have one last one. And this is on the national western campus when I had a briefing from the staff person around the language changes or the zoning creating the new campus zoning for the National Western Center. One of the things that was talked about was allowing a helipad and I didn't see and hear if that was still in the language. Can you help me determine if that is still an allowable use or is it a conditional use or is it not being allowed after all? Sure. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question, that the council will take up the matter of National Western Center zoning next week. That's a separate text amendment, so there are separate red lines for it. And I'm not the project manager on that case. I'm not familiar with that issue. Okay. I was just curious because I saw part of that language included in here. This is probably just some of the base language right in it because it's got all the red lines as part of what we received in the packet. Oh okay. For the the bundle. Yeah. No that should not be being adopted as part of tonight's. That's part of next week's agenda. Okay. So let me ask the city attorney then, have you seen this? So we've got a whole section in here called Campus National Western Center as part of the bundle. And so I'm just trying to understand, if we're not if we're dealing with the actual adoption of that zoning next week, should it be part of this language here tonight? No, I'm kind of going to look to Kyle because, again, Lori Strand, city attorney's office, the red line for the bundle should not include red lines establishing the new National Western Center. That's separate. That'll be a separate text amendment. So perhaps the red line that was provided to you was incorrect or. I'm happy to provide you what I received. I printed this out. But what you're proving tonight is and that does not include the language for the north ethnic national western. So that's when you get political. Okay. Councilman Ortega, can we move on or what is it that you make up? I was just trying to get clarification. Would you like me to. We're, in fact, including. Or are we just adopting that? National Western Center is a category we're creating. I mean, there's some there there. So again, we will speak to what was provided. But tonight before you is not that. So if that text is shown on the red line and should not be. That's going to be considered next week as a separate text amendment. But Kyle can explain perhaps what was provided. Sure. Yeah. I don't have a copy of what you provide these things, but the copy of the red line draft that I have does not include that. And regardless, what the council is adopting tonight is what was filed with the ordinance. And what was filed with the ordinance is a clean version. In that clean version, I can assert does not have anything related to National Western Center in it. So if there is a either an error in something staff produced that shows the red line, which is a courtesy to show what's happening but is not what is filed . My mistake, but is not in the copy of the red line that I have in front of me. And, and on the front page of what you provided actually says this is the national western centered public review draft, not the bundle. So this is actually for the National Western think, which is next week at the rural one. So it's a different packet that you should have for cattle and it's much thicker than this. You'll know because that's about 700 pages. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So, Kyle, if you could stay up here. So I was hoping. I just want to jump in really quickly. We heard from some audience members that they're not able to hear council comments. So I should have said that before the public hearing. So you wouldn't. Mind speaking closer to the microphone. Thank you. So, Mr. Dalton, just to help put that tonight's conversation in a little bit better context, I was hoping you could expound a little bit on what the street level activation changes actually were, because I think it's imperative in terms of two of the speaker's comments this evening. Sure. Thanks. So so here's here's the street level active use. What we're proposing in the text amendment, I'll remind the Council that in the current code we have building form requirements that relate to mixed use and main street districts. So where are we already have requirements relative to transparency, how many windows are required and the size and and the location of those. How much of the building is located near the street? In our mixed use of Main Street districts, that surface parking isn't allowed between the building and street in many of those locations. So what this is specifically speaking to is the use that's happening inside that building for certain widths and depths. So what we have currently in the code today without this amendment is we address use only in Main Street and we don't address it at all in mixed use. So in our Main Street districts today, we have what I've got on the screen now that the ground story within the required build to portion must have at least one primary use other than parking of vehicles. That's the language in the code today. It was in the original Main Street when it was adopted in the mid 2000s. There's no dimensions on it. There's nothing other than no parking. So, you know, what we found is folks can provide a postage stamp sized lobby and meet that requirement and then move on and still have parking in the rest of Main Street and then again in mixed use or nothing today. So that's the current state of affairs. What's proposed in the bundle is to change that for some of our districts. So we'll be adding new use requirements that apply to the portion of the building frontage, meaning the bill too. So that's kind of the width question. And so we'll do that in the main street in our C-Max Urban Center mixed use zone districts that so 100% of the part of the building that's meeting the build to requirement in those districts needs to have what we're calling a street level active use. I'll explain that in a second. In the, um ex in the TMX zone districts, we're proposing a 40% frontage requirement and then in all the others we're still not changing the world. So in the urban edge, in the suburban, in the commercial corridor zone districts, no change. And then as Heather alluded to, you know, they just mentioned the frontage percentages, which is essentially the width. There would be a minimum, a depth of 15 feet. So, you know, that's the minimum that would be required in order to meet the new code requirement. And within that 15 feet and the percentage you couldn't do parking, mini storage, wholesale storage or trade or accessory auto related uses. So you know what the department's proposed. I would agree with the speakers that it's moving the ball forward significantly. And these districts that today have none or almost no requirement, while at the same time recognizing that through the bundle, we're taking a citywide approach. We're not taking a street by street, block by block approach to know, you know, where in some places and. Some districts, you know, there may be a more appropriate, more stringent requirement that's appropriate. And and so, you know, my colleague, a barge is already working with the Berkeley neighborhood, in particular to work on an overlay district, perhaps for their neighborhood that would increase the requirements there based on their unique needs. But on a citywide basis, when we studied where all of those euro zone districts are, where all the TMX, where all the C-Max or all the main street are, we felt that this was the right move to move the ball forward with without unduly burdening accidentally projects throughout the whole city. Okay. I thank you. And then I have one more question for Miss Gregg. Yeah. You can come. Up here with. So, Miss Gregg, I know you were a little bit rushed in your comments, and so I'm not sure you got to say everything that you wanted to say, but I wanted to make sure that you are in support of the changes tonight, because I know you said a couple of them didn't go far enough. So I'm not sure if I heard you say that you owe complete support. Yes, that's what I just think. You clarify. I think you. Thank you. Any other comments by members of council or questions on the public hearing for council? Bill 298 is closed. Comments by Members of Council Councilman Sesame. Okay. Councilman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So I just wanted to say that I am in support of this text amendment bundle tonight, and I want to I want to talk a lot about the process, because that's as important of the story of what we're actually doing here tonight. And I know that Ms.. Greg alluded to this, but the Berkeley Regis neighborhood organization has had a profound impact on what these text amendments are included in the bundle, specifically as relates to the street level activation piece of this bundle. This is how the iterative process of the code is supposed to work. So in May of last year, the neighborhood organization held an open session for neighbors from the whole community to come in. And it didn't have to have, you know, knowledge in the code. You just had to be able to articulate what it was that you liked and what's working in the new code and what isn't. And there was a lot of this is an area that has, under the new code revision and with the rebound in the market, has experienced tremendous growth and change just in the last 2 to 3 years. And quite frankly, a lot of the residents are really reeling from those impacts in a number of ways. But I will really hand it to the neighborhood for being able to be very articulate about, you know, what is working and what isn't working and why and why they'd like to see. And so what came out of that was a very nicely spelled out list of of thoughts and possible recommendations that the neighborhood neighborhood would like to have seen in the code. And so working through my office, we were able to have a meeting with officials from Community Planning and Development and literally do a walkthrough with the neighborhood , which I think took like two or 3 hours, like not just the commercial street, but the neighborhood. And there were several recommendations that came forward. Community planning and development on its own accord acted to already implement some of those suggestions, which happened administratively actually last year. This particular one in relation to street activation actually, you know, was determined as a need to be changed in the code and that is why it's coming forward in this bundle of text amendments. But and I know the process took longer, much longer than the neighborhood had wanted. I mean, I think that meeting, if I'm not mistaken, with community planning and development, was in probably about August of last year. And here it is July, and we're finally passing the code. And I know it's frustrating for folks that things don't change as quickly as as folks would like, but this is how the process works. And I want people to understand that. I mean, I know there's a lot of frustration out there because when the code revision was passed in 2010, nobody could really envision what it would look like as it played out. And certainly the way the market has rebounded so quickly and so much has redeveloped in a very short period of time and especially the pressure has been very great on certain neighborhoods. And I know a lot of people are, you know, upset and angry and wringing hands. But there are practical solutions, you know, and it starts at that neighborhood level about collecting that data and that input, you know, and then reaching out to council members or community planning and other staff to try to start figuring out how to make those changes in a way that is meaningful and works. And this is very much a testament to that. And, you know, I want folks to understand that, you know, the entire city team is open to this and this is how the process works. So, you know, please consider this. You know, this is really, in my opinion, at least this piece of it is really, you know, kind of a hats off to the process working well. And I just want other individuals and neighbors and neighborhood organizations to take, you know, to receive assurance that this is how we can affect change and that the code is a living document, breathing document, and that it can change and and we can make it work better. We really can. And so I just you know, this is this neighborhood organization. I mean, it's all volunteers, as all of them are. But and this particular neighborhood organization has a tremendous amount of expertize among the board in terms of design and development planning. And so was able to have a really informed discussion with city staff about how to make this happen. And so I just really want to encourage folks, you know, to, you know, to get beyond hand-wringing and to get to that constructive level because we can make this work better. So I'm definitely in support. And once again, want to thank Berkeley Regents for taking the initiative and helping to make this happen. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 298. Shepherd Susman, Brooks Brown. II. But I can eat lemon. I Lopez. I never. I. Ortega. I rub i. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. Zero nays. Council Bill 298 has passed. Council Bill 345 and 346 approve the zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct public hearings on zoning map amendments. The council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. Speakers should begin their comments by telling the council their names, cities of residence, and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home addresses. Councilman Lopez, will you please? Please. Council Bill 345 on the floor. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 345 series of 2015 be placed upon final consideration to pass. Okay. I need a second from a member of council. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 345 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. I am trying to get a PowerPoint open here, so give me a second.