A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance 902 Series of 1995 by modifying the legal description of the area covered by structure for preservation located at 1940-1946 West 33rd Avenue. Amends an individual Denver landmark designation by reducing the size of the landmark boundary area for property located at 1940-1946 West 33rd Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-6-17.
Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must director comments. The council members as a whole please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council 613 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bills 613 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for Council 613 is open. May we have the staff report? Caroline for you. Good. Good evening. This is for the amendment of a designation of a property at 1942, 1946, West 33rd Avenue is in Council District one and it is highlighted here in yellow. So the address is 1942, 1946, West 33rd Avenue. This is come came forward from the owner. It's a general location is at the corner of Tahoe in 33rd Avenue and the current zoning is max five. It's in the blueprint area of change. And so far on this, the entire yellow area is what is the existing Denver landmark. And they are looking to reduce it down to the red dashed area. This is a picture of the existing historic building. And on the right side is an empty parking lot that is part of the landmark designation application or part of the part of the existing landmark. So it was initially there was a mixed use residential apartment and grocery store that was constructed in 1892, and it's this highlighted there by the purple. This is a 1905 based map. Then the adjacent apartment building was constructed in 1895, and that is the existing Denver landmark. In about the 1980s, the mixed use building was demolished and condemned. And then in 1995, the lots that are noted in the lower map lots one, two, three and four highlighted in red were designated as a Denver landmark as a whole. And then in 2004, a non contributing garage was constructed. In 2015, the Landmark Preservation Commission approved a zone wide amendment that split the lot. And then in 2016, they approved the demolition of a non contributing garage. So they are currently looking to amend the boundary to remove the west portion of the property from the Denver landmarks. So Landmark Preservation Staff and the commission met all of the commission notices to the registered neighborhood organizations, notified and put signs up on the property for the Landmark Preservation Public Hearing. According to Chapter 30, any procedures to amend or rescind a designation are slightly different than the other designation. It goes to the Landmark Preservation Commission and typically they can terminate, change or recommend that it's forwarded for anything that is amendment. It shall be sent to you for your consideration regardless of the Preservation Commission recommendation. But it does have to follow the standard Chapter 30 dash for procedures and it needs to maintain its historic and physical integrity. Meet one designation criteria in two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And it still needs to relate to a historic context or theme in Denver history. So when this property was reviewed both by staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission, we looked at the existing building and then the attached carriage house. As it was noted in the original designation, that particular apartment building retains its design materials, workmanship, location, setting and feeling, which are the aspects of integrity that you look at to determine if a property retains its physical integrity. And then we looked at the associated vacant or empty lot, which is noted by the purple. That's where the lot is located now. It used to hold a mixed use commercial building that took up basically the entire lot. It has been that building was the one that was demolished in the 1980s. So the vacant lot that's associated with the historic building retains its location. But because it's a vacant lot, it does not maintain its design materials, workmanship, setting, feeling or association. So the lot itself that's being looked to split off does not retain its physical or historic integrity. The 1995 landmark designation when it went through originally was determined to have significance under history with direct and substantial associations with particular persons and under architecture for distinguishing architectural characteristics. The Landmark Preservation Commission looked and found that the existing apartment building was still associated with Lina C Seacole, who was the original owner. He constructed both the 1892 mixed use building that was demolished, as well as the 1895 existing apartment building. He owned it until about 1919, when it was sold to Frank De Rose in sort of an it was part of Little Italy at the time. Based on the original 1995 designation, it discussed that there were rumored associations with the Mafia, but there was never anything that substantiated that. The vacant lot which used to hold the historic building is no longer associated with Cole or Rose as it is a demolished building. And there is. Since there is no integrity in the vacant lot, it can no longer convey its historical associations with either Little Italy, the beginning of the Highlands area, or either of the two members , Cole or DeRose, who were associated with the buildings. Under architecture, which is what it was looked at in 1995. The existing building was called the Victorian Eclectic Style. The building itself still retains good integrity. It still has the Tuscan columns and the swag at the top, and so it still retains its association with its particular style, the vacant lot, because it was the building was demolished in the 1980s. It no longer retains integrity to convey any architectural style. Historic context in theme was added to the Denver ordinance in 2012. So the 1995 designation does not really address whether it meets Denver's historic context or themes. And so what that called for in the 2012 amendment of the ordinance is to compare it to other structures and that it still retains its physical integrity. So the new boundary designation application does address that, that the existing building is still related to a 19th century apartment rentals in the area, that it reflects the growth of the Highlands and Denver during its early boom years. But that vacant lot, since it does not contain or does not retain integrity, does not relate to or convey a historic theme in Denver's history. We did not receive any written public comments, and there were no public comments at the Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing. The Landmark Preservation Commission found that the apartment building itself retains integrity, but the vacant lot did not. They found that it still met the history criteria as associated with persons who had influence in society, but the vacant lot did not. They found that the existing apartment building still reflected the architectural style and type for which it was originally designated. But the vacant lot that is now partially parking and a picket fence no longer has any architectural style. And they found that the apartment building related to the themes and context in Denver history, but the lot did not . They voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the amendment of the boundary of the structure for preservation. Great. Complete. All right. We have four speakers this evening. I'm going to call you to the front. Please. Please come on to the front bench. Hmm. Andre Cove. Lillian. I'm sorry. David Burton. Weinstein Hall and Timbers. Please come to the front. So clearly you had your first 3 minutes. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Counsel, I am going on. My name is Andre Kwan. I'm a representative of the applicant and owner of the building, Elmer Weinstein Hall Jr. I'm going to let him talk a little bit more in depth about. About the situation and about his experience. But just to give you just to clarify a few things. This is not in this building is not an historic district. It is an individual landmark that actually the owner and applicant, Mr. Stein Hall, stood before city council and applied for in 1995. He is the one who is now asking that that that the boundaries be amended to this individual landmark. And I think all that I think a of them take it from there. All right. Thank you, sir. David. David, you have to go in order. I'm sorry. David Burton. My name is David Burton, 2899 North Spear Boulevard. I am a representative of Weinstein Hall as well, the owner. As Andre said, the building originally was built in 1895, and when landmarked the building as a city of Denver landmark in 1995 , when he landmarked the property, he didn't realize he was landmarking the entire zone lot. Subsequently, in the past two years we have separated the zone lot and the parcel. So there is a vacant lot. That's a separate assessor parcel and a separate zone lot. And then there's a building, an apartment building that retains its original historic character. So our processes amending that individual city of Denver landmark to only include the building and not the vacant parcel. With nothing on it. So from my from my point of view, the building is being preserved and will be preserved as a city of Denver landmark. And the city of Denver should not have a vacant. Parcel as an individual. Landmark. So that's why we choose to amend the boundary. All right. Thank you, Mr. Burton. All right. Mr. Weinstein. All. Hello. I am the owner, Weinstein Hall. I go by wine. And I did designate this property historical in 1995. I believe I've kept up his integrity as far as, uh, uh, I've applied, you know, for tax credits for all the work that I've done in prior years, which took a fortune, by the way. And then, uh, I've maintained the historical upgrades and will continue to maintain the historical upgrades throughout time. Uh. And I hope you approve the Boundary Amendment, basically. Thank you, Mr. Tunnell. Thank you. And lastly, we have Tim Bowers Borst. Good evening, counsel. My name is Tim Burst. Where's normal phonetics? Somewhere in the middle or. And I live in the Highland neighborhood in Denver. I chair the Planning and Community Development Committee for Highland United Neighbors Inc, that R.A. that covers the Highland neighborhood. And I'm here to speak in opposition to this adjustment of the boundaries. Our committee voted on this earlier this month. We didn't come to this decision readily. We didn't come to it quickly. Rather, we looked around the Highland neighborhood and looked at the massive changes that continue to go on in our neighborhood. Since part of our neighborhood is an area of change. We're getting lots of change. What we recognize over the last two or three years is a pattern where we have either landmarked properties that have been subdivided or we have landmark eligible properties slated for demolition where the neighborhood has gone to the to the landowner, usually with help of our councilman, and have discussed means of saving the buildings. And we've been successful in saving a couple of buildings. But the success is a mixed success. The buildings are still there, but the context has changed. And what happened in the first of two was that when the property was saved, it was renovated, it was sold, and then the property was subdivided. And so without any neighborhood, say, neighborhood control, certainly no landmark input. New new construction was added on what had been a large corner lot. And it's it's out of context with what's around it. It's it has no the new construction has no relationship to the existing. And so we're not looking for new buildings to be historical replications by any stretch. In fact, we would oppose that. But we are looking for things that that relate to the to the buildings around us. And we've seen a second one where we negotiated to allow two new houses and an 82 to be added to the property to save the existing house and existing house and was painted, which it wouldn't have been if it had been landmarks. But all these were agreements by not landmarking something. So to have this new situation, which is highly unusual in the city of Denver, to have subdivided property and then to take off of the landmark to take landmark designation off of a parcel of the property leaves us in the same position that we've been seeing in other situations . So there's no protection, there's no input from the Landmark Commission to suggest how to do things a little bit more appropriately. So, see, my time is up. Thank you. Hope you'll think about opposing us. All right. This concludes our speakers this evening. Questions by members of council. Councilman Espinosa And just one quick question from LPC staff or CPD staff. There was a mention of. There's my note that this was an individual landmark. And if I recall, sort of based on prior conversations, there was some I don't know if it's actual or just lay terms that individual landmarks are more significant somehow or have a higher sort of, uh. I don't know. Let's put words in my mouth in this case, you know, Overland Park districts. There, I mean, they're they're all designated they all go through the design review process the same. But individual landmarks are oftentimes seen as more significant because it's a single property that was deemed to be highly significant on its own to be designated. Whereas when you're looking at an entire historic district, not every building within that district would be eligible for individual landmarking. So you could see it that an individual is slightly more significant. Great. Thank you. That's that's my understanding. Thank you. All right. Councilman Espinosa. Anything else? Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Kara, could. Could you explain? I don't think you were here in 95, but how did a vacant lot that at least now the assessor shows as a separate parcel? How did that get included in the designation in the first place? If there's nothing on it. The building was torn down in the early eighties. This is 1995. How'd that happen? So we don't have the record of that. We have some supposition. So it was one parcel and historic. Split since then. Yes. So it's been split. And so that was done in 2015. I'm sorry to have to go back to the site. I believe in 2015 it was that the zone lot was split. So typically within nationwide preservation policy in an urban area, the entire parcel is what is landmarked if it is historically associated with the building because there were two there had been historically two buildings that were associated with each other. That's my belief. Likely why it was landmarked as a whole. Even though the building was no longer there. So the building was no longer there. But they did. When the building was demolished, they took the bricks from that building and made a garden that was associated with sort of that apartment building. And so in that sense, they were kind of associated at the time, although it wasn't a historic building that was still standing. Let me clarify then, because you used two terms that mean different things. I make sure I understand a zone lot is different than a lot. So you're saying at the time of designation it was a single lot or a single zone. So single zone lot. Sorry. Okay. But they were separate parcels at the time. I believe it was the same parcel. I would have to go back and check on that. But I believe it was the same parcel. It was the same owner of all of it. Thank you. Actually, since the owner is sitting here, maybe I could better directed him. Wayne, could you come up and address that? If you recall. When I when I designated a lot. I was actually trying to designate the actual building. Right. And had no idea that I was designating the whole, you know, the whole encumbered lot. However, yeah, like Kara said, some of the bricks that were from from the building that fell down, we had made a garden and, you know, there was little brick pathways and stuff, you know, and actually in remembrance of the Garden, I actually did a mural of a garden that, you know, that replicates a garden anyway to try to, you know, preserve what I could or do what I could and. But basically that's what I went through in 95. That is, I thought it was a special building and I did get the historical designation. And, you know, actually, I was hoping to get grants, but I never got those right. But, uh, you know, I, I basically, you know, I, I got the designation, I've followed the rules, and I've kept the integrity of the building. Okay. Thank you, Carrie. One more question, then. Do is there any other example in the city of where we've designated as a Denver landmark, a vacant property? Not that I'm aware of. There are. Oftentimes, a house will be on multiple lots and lots and lots, but multiple lots. And so say it'll be like a corner house. And they will have intentionally, historically have landscaped yards that have always been associated with that. So there are cases where that is one landmark, but the land itself is considered part of the property because it's intricately connected to the house itself, because someone chose to buy a bigger lot, keep it landscaped. It was integral to the the use of the property, perhaps in the in the in the time period in question. Yes. Okay. And if I. One more question, Mr. President, for the gentleman from Tim, was it. Yeah, from honey. Are you suggesting that we should retain the landmark status of this vacant parcel, essentially, for the purpose of preventing it from being built upon? No, in a way other than that is in character with the neighborhood. Or would you would would honey like to see it built on in a way that is consistent with what used to be there or with the rest of the neighborhood? Or what exactly is the purpose for opposing this? We'd like to see some design review by folks. Who are landmark. By the neighborhood, and by the landmark commission who can take into account impacts of what new construction would look like there relative to the historic apartment building. Okay. So what it looks like exactly. We don't have any. Right. Sorry, but you don't want it to look like some cubist architect on psychotropic drugs. Developed it like we see elsewhere in the city. Your words. Thank you. Okay. Sorry to tread on Councilman Cashman's turf. Thank you, Mr. President. Chief Counsel, we're flying off the rails tonight. All right, let's see. Councilman Cashman, you're in. And I got my question answered. Okay, that's good. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Back to the lots. So we talked a little bit about what the lots were possibly, but now they're separated. And could the vacant lot be sold to a different owner? How they're set up now. I mean, it could be landmark preservation. It does not have any purview over the selling of any property. So they could sell it as a whole. I suppose they could sell it as a separate zone lot. That's not something that landmark has a purview over. But that they're separated enough right now that you could have a different owner on the part that's landmarked, that has the building than the part that's landmarked. And so we could end up with a lot that's landmarked with nothing on it. And that's what they own. Yes, I believe so. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right, Councilman Clark, Councilman Espinosa, back up. I was going to try to avoid getting in the weeds on these things. But the zone lot has sort of is the earth is is separate or part of the irrespective of the parcels. You know, you can you can have a parcel that's on a different on an extended zone line. But so this is a question they brought up and I didn't want to bring it up now. But since you brought Kyle, can you speak to the the are there exceptions? I mean, what are are there any provisions in the main street zone? Is it Main Street or what is the max? Max seem to see Max relative to existing buildings on zone lots. Are there exceptions that are are given because of the existing buildings? Well, when Kyle doesn't want to answer a question, who did he say it is? Is that not. Is that not germane to this conversation? I mean, canwe. Okay. You want him to restate, rephrase the question? Yeah. The reason why sort of the challenge is, is that. I think we're getting confused by the zone lot split. Whether that was one lot or two lots didn't preclude development or sale of the land. It could have been developed at any point in time. As a matter of fact, it was developed in 2004 with the garage structure. And so there's you know, and so it just is how does the zone land split even play into any of this if it doesn't? Well, that I defer to Kerry. I don't think that there's any anything about the zone lot that the landmark ordinance addresses, you know. Yeah. So you just it was five. It's still five, correct? That's correct. Thank you. Thank you, Kyle. All right, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask the applicant, Mr. Steinle, if you can come to the microphone, please. Can you just tell us what you plan to do with that corner lot if this goes through? I'm not absolutely sure right now. Uh, I might possibly build a house. I live. I live on the property right now. So you could build up to a five story building. I'm not going to build a five storey no, no. I don't envision any monstrous building. In fact, you know, I would never I don't think I'd even exceed, you know, three stories at the very most. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I just have. Yeah. Councilman Espinosa, I just had one question for Mr. Steinhoff. So when did you realize you said you didn't intend to include this parcel? When did you realize that it was included in. Excuse me? That happened probably, what, back a few years ago. When? When we were doing the you know, we were looking at splitting. And then found out that the designation still included the whole entire lot. And I was never aware of that when I got it done. They just put a plaque in front of my building and I thought it was just a building. I had no idea that it included the whole entire. So as a time you went to LPC in 2004, you didn't realize that that was encumbered? Not at all. In fact, I never had any backlash for building those garages ever. Right. Because it went through the design review process. Yeah, I did. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. No other questions. I actually have a question for Mr. Spurs from Honey. I notice that I could not find a letter from honey in the packet. Now, you may have made a decision after we brought it through committee that the ludie committee that you had. Dated on Friday the 23rd, and. Oh, you have all received an email of that last Friday. Okay. That's right. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers and the public hearing from counsel. Bill 613 is now closed. Comments from members of Council Counsel. Councilman Espinosa. So this came to us without much debate because it's not a matter for LPC to even opine on and in. But they did mention sort of in passing at the end of their conversation about oh well this will this mean that this can't come before us. And the member acknowledged that that would be the case. And and that's really the crux of of the matter here, is there's development rights there. They they've been there. They remain it's just a matter of whether this goes through design review or not. And quite frankly, you know, that is been the lack of design review has been one of the sort of hallmark concerns of residents in all of northwest Denver, particularly an area like this that is is essentially it's got significant value to this city. It's desirable because of its sort of character, its past and its present in. And LPC has proven very capable at mixing new with the old and and and our design community has been less so. And I think if you read the Highland United Neighbors letter and you saw the three examples that they gave you with the illustrations, you would see that, yeah, you don't get the best outcomes when you just create a use by right situation adjacent to a landmark property. There's a reason why we defined areas around there, and in this case, the whole reason to sort of remove this, I mean, to go through this process is to remove a property from that little additional step, which the applicant himself has already been through once before. Actually, twice before he had to do it through for the construction of the garage and for the demolition of the garage. So LPC is is really capable and cognizant that change happens and it needs to happen and it will happen in a thriving city. So design review is more about how these buildings relate. And most of the communities that have design reviews sort of really genuinely benefit from that. And so I won't read the letter, but I do appreciate the letter that came from the R.A. and its committee. I hope, I hope my colleagues have seen it all. Otherwise I will go through it because it's got some really, really illustrative, illustrative examples of why this is important, to actually have this little bit of oversight in the process, especially on such an important Main Street commercial corridor as Tyrone. But so, you know, to to quote, it says, we are concerned about that without design review, the new structure could have impacts similar to those cited. And that's the three examples that were given and are in your packet. It is important to note and this is still quoting is important to note that maintaining landmark status in this pardon property is not taking the property rights. The entire property was landmarked by the property owner originally to protect the property. Not allowing the property owner to carve out and remove a portion of the property from the existing landmark. Protection does not change the property rights that currently exist. So so you know they go on to say we urge council to reject this request to remove landmark designation from the vacant portion of this property, landmark property to remove landmark protection. And this is key I added that from a portion of this property would set a precedent for other landmark Denver landmark properties citywide that have open space remaining. So just because it's vacant doesn't mean it does. It's not important to set up the context for that building now and in the future. I mean, it was an individually landmark building because it meant that threshold. So design review it to. And many architects has nothing to fear and is a wonderful asset to many of the communities that have skilled reviewers. And landmarked districts have proven capable of better integrating new with the old where needed. And it is needed here in northwest Denver. I will be voting against this area modification and urge my colleagues to do this to see. Likewise. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in and explain my vote before I do. I think the argument that's been raised about design review in Landmark Review is an important one in terms of the context. And I recognize that. I think the changing nature of our neighborhoods is a huge concern for communities, and it's one that I share. I guess I am worried about a different precedent. I have voted for several designations on this Council for Homes that I thought met the criteria. But some of my colleagues disagreed and felt that because of the economic impact and because of the economic concerns on the owners, they were not comfortable designating. And so those designations failed and those homes were lost. And so I you know, I can think of at least two homes that I voted to preserve, that my colleagues disagreed in part because it would limit the owners ability to economically recover their their needed costs. And then there are other homes that maybe have never come forward, because as much as I appreciate that some architects don't fear Landmark, I have gotten a number of constituent concerns. That Landmark is not easy and that it can be very difficult. And it is it is one of the reasons that gives people pause about designating. It's why so many of these compromise solutions involve not designating but someone coming up with a side agreement because there is a concern. And so here's my concern about the precedent, is that if we say no to what you know, our you know what, on its surface looks like a fairly common sense. Why have a parking lot designated? I am very concerned about the odds of future homes being saved and I think it will make it that much harder. If we had a context where we were saving the homes, then I would move on to the bottom of the of the context. But we're not even saving homes right now. And I think these economic arguments are used from folks who, you know, in their in their weighing of the factors have voted against it. So so I, I do feel concerned that saying no will give future owners pause about being able to do this. And I want homes saved. Right. Or properties I shouldn't say property. They're not all homes. Some of them are. This is apartment buildings. Some of them are businesses. But so so with great due respect to the concern about context, I think it's really important to make it as easy and to make it as appealing as possible to save the historic structures. And so I'm weighing it in that regard, and I'm going to vote for this amendment today on that basis. So I just want to explain that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman. Now thank you for you know, this is seems to be a situation a design review for this property. And and what you're planning on doing with the property is seem like a just a perfect recipe for our development agreement with the neighborhood. I've seen those work very well. This specifies what's going to happen with the property and there's a participation in it and it fits in well with the neighborhood. So I sure would encourage you to consider that with the neighborhood and let them be participate in the design and and your plans and and move forward and help develop the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. No, and I'm actually glad you said that. You know, it seems like the crux of the argument now is is about review. And I'm a little surprised that we haven't maybe we have had the conversation, but this is the first time I'm having the conversation. And. We're not in Question Time, we're in communist time. So I guess I have a rhetorical question, but people can shake their heads if not. But have we had a conversation over the neighborhood getting a review of the potential property? Okay. Well, I think. Just just go ahead, man. I'm president. I might as well go ahead and break my. I'd just like to comment what she said when, you know, it does, you know, doing this historical designation. I didn't think it'd be such a stranglehold and it has been. Yeah. You know, in some parts I've I've, you know, I've, I've abided by everything there is to do with it structurally and try to maintain its integrity I guess. And I'm just saying that would you, would you, would you be amenable to a development agreement with the neighborhood? Well, we already went to Hueneme before we even came here. I know for for the future development of that piece of the property. I'm just curious if you've had that conversation. We haven't actually up personally. No. Let me let me just finish my comments. I appreciate it. I appreciate you coming forward. I guess I guess, you know, my comments are very close to councilman news. And in many of my neighborhoods, this has been an issue. A development agreement has been something that we could bring both sides together. And it seems like something that's ripe for this situation. Unfortunately, I wish we could have a lot of time to talk about this and see if we could get this hammered out before the vote. So I just wanted to say that I think it's incredibly important, especially in interesting I've never I don't know if we've ever had a amendment to a landmark area that wasn't exactly a building. So I'm struggling with this a little bit. But, um. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I just. I want to say that this island is the home of the largest landmark district in the city, and Tim has been a member of PCD for over 30 years and has had numerous of these conversations and have led to wonderful outcomes for Northwest Denver. But that is only when it's essentially a part of the process. In our blanket zone districts, and you've heard me say this time and time again, that process is cut out. There is no requirement and it's purely voluntary to have good public input or any sort of professional design review. And so we don't we don't have a conservation overlay like Curtis Park does for the entire area. We don't have designer, if you like, Cherry Creek. You know, we have these little bits and pieces of of our history that remain. And this is one that was voluntarily protected. It has been through LPC several times to, you know, to to to the benefit of the owner. He even stated that he received tax credits as a benefit of this designation. And so when when there is public involvement here and a willful commitment to that ultimate, you know, this little bit of follow through is not too much to ask because that's the only way you get that level of experience that that this community has invested in, in its in its leadership and in its outcomes. Get people to that table to have that conversation. Hey, this is what we want to do. It's four stories tall. It's mixed use or all residential. It looks like this. You know, what do you think? We think this and I think the LPC values that input from the community. It's nice to have it, but if we don't have it, I can show you and I think I've driven many council my colleagues around areas of my district that do not have even this level of scrutiny and what goes on there. And so why would you strip this community from this little bit of input when all you have to do is say, note your existing development rights and requirements remain just like they have been since 1995. For the last 22 years. You know. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I was actually talking about South City Park and the sprouts there and the development agreement that the community came up with the developer there, which is it was a big deal in 2012. But seeing no other comments by members of council Madam Secretary and Anita. Okay. There it is. Is there. Madam Secretary. Rocco Espinosa. No. Flynn, I. Gillmor. I Cashman. I can each. New. Ortega? No. Black eye, Clark. All right. Mr. President. I please close. Very nice results. Nine eyes to. Nine eyes to two nays. Counsel 613 has passed due to 4th of July holiday. Council next meeting will be July 10th, 1217. How a safe holiday. There's no other business before this body. Thank you.