A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for the area bounded by 17th Avenue, Lowell Boulevard, 16th Avenue, Newton Street & 1570, 1572, 1576, 1578, 1580, 1584, 1586, 1590, 1592 Meade Street in West Colfax. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from PUD 8, U-TU-C to PUD-G, U-TU-C, (planned development to urban, two-unit) for the properties located at the block bounded by Newton Street, 17th Avenue, Lowell Boulevard, and 16th Avenue and 1570, 1572, 1576, 1578, 1580, 1584, 1586, 1590, 1592 Meade Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-30-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures of the owners of at least 20% of property owners within 200 feet of the subject area or 20% within 200 feet of the outside of the subject area) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 27.36%, respectively).
I'm secretary. Please because voting announced results 12 days. Well, I. As Council Bill 547 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor. And move that council bill 401 be placed upon final consideration. Do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 401 is open. May we have the staff reports? Good evening, members of Council. My name is Annalise Hoke and I'm a city planner with CPD here to present the rezoning number 2017. i001062 reason party number eight and U2 c to P.O.D. G 21 and U2 C. The subject property is located in Council District three and the West Colfax neighborhood. As you can see on the aerial site above the portion to the northern area of 16 Story Avenue will be zoned to Denver Zoning Code G and the southern portion will be zoned to U2 C, which is a two unit zone district with a minimum size of 5500 square feet. The proposed APD is based off of CMCs eight and is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the surface parking area and to allow for the continued use of the medical facility. The period contains a series of sub areas with different height allowances to allow for a transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Increased pedestrian activity along 17th Avenue, as well as continued uses of the hospital and associated uses. The existing zoning of the site is pretty eight, with the small exception of one lot adjacent located on Newton Street which is zoned you two. You see the existing PWD is from 1970s and is as you can be indicated by beauty. Eight is one of our oldest ones still sitting around. The diagram to the left illustrates the planned buildings that are associated with the property, as well as the potential heights that are allowed under the putty. Ultimately, it allows for two large towers immediately adjacent on Newton with no setbacks or transition, as well as a series of other towers on the site. The portion south of 16th Avenue allows for a parking structure and that is the only use on the site. So I just want to note that those single unit and two unit homes are non-conforming under the current beauty. When we look at the existing land use of the site, you can see that the block to the east of the main block is considered off or Medich mixed uses and which is primarily comprised of medical uses on the site. And then the large block on the western portion of the site is currently used for surface parking. The finger to the south, the 16th is comprised of single unit and two unit uses. A couple of photos from Google Street View to better acquaint yourself with the site. On the top are looking from at the site from 17th and Newton and looking southeast as well as looking at the site from 16th and Newton looking northeast. And then the photo on the bottom left is a photo of the single and two unit homes on Main Street. The photo on the left illustrates area that's on to the site adjacent of GMU three where row homes have been constructed as well as single family homes along Newton Street. Overall, the purpose of Period G 21 is to provide an alternative set of regulations and a unique and extraordinary circumstances, and to provide for more flexible zoning than what may be achieved through a standard set of zoned districts, or require an unreasonable amount of waivers, conditions and variances. Specifically, I'd like to talk about the some of the key elements of Pudi G 21. The entire Pudi is located in the staff report and packet, so I'm just going to go over the key high level points of it. The the main purpose of Pudi G 21 is to allow for a nuanced approach to the height along the site. So as you can know, it's comprised of multiple sub areas with suburbia, a being located in the center of the site with the highest height allowance of 16 seat 16 stories excuse me, transitioning down to Siberia B which is a height limit of ten stories. ca3 stories and the lower E and F are intended to accommodate for the continued use of the medical care facility. Additionally, in exchange for some of these flexibility, we've also allowed for higher street level active uses along 17th Street and Newton to ensure that neighborhood amenities can promote a walkable experience along 17th Street and to limit the visible parking above the street level where the parking garages are going to be constructed to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. I would also like to note that we have reduced the parking requirements for the eating and drinking establishments as well as medical and dental offices. The intent of these uses are to serve the surrounding adjacent community with community serving uses that people can walk, bike or roll to. A key element of this rezoning application is a concurrent development agreement. Two key elements of this development agreement focus first on the multimodal connection between 16th and 17th as a continuation of Mead, which was called for in the West Colfax Plan. And I'll speak to further. And then the primary focus of the development agreement is the Voluntary Affordable Housing Agreement. And Laura Burtynsky will be joining us later and can speak further to details of that affordable housing agreement. But I want to give an overview. To begin. So the affordable housing agreement talks about the for sale units as well as for rent units. The for sale units will be primarily located in some areas A and B, and it requires for a minimum of either 7% of those units constructed or eight, whichever is greater to be income restricted at either 100 and 100% area median income for a period of 99 years. Additionally, it requires that a portion of those units must be two and three bedroom units to support the need for family friendly housing in multi-unit developments. All of the rental units are going to be income restricted for a minimum time period of 30 years. As you all note, the breakdown of these range from 60 to 50 to 40% ami going into much deeper levels of affordability than we might traditionally see through other affordable housing agreements and is deeper than what may be traditionally required through the citywide linkage fee. I'd also like to note that all affordable units will be subject to the city's affordable housing rules and regulations, which are to serve as a supplement to the DRC. Terms of the process that has led to today. We went to the planning board on April 17th. Planning Board recommended approval with a vote of 6 to 1, a planning board. There was a large group of speakers with mixed opinions expressing their support and concern for the proposed rezoning. Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee saw this on the 30th of April and we are here today. All standard notice scene was in accordance with the Denver zoning code and as required, we also notified all of the listed RNAs throughout the process and as you will note and are included in your packet, we recently received excuse me , two letters of opposition from we can as well as a flood like neighborhood association. As of the date of the staff report, we closed comments to be included in the packet last Thursday afternoon. So at that point the count was 30 letters provide an opposition 18 in support and for generalized comments primarily key key themes of those that were in opposition cited concerns over traffic, parking, loss of use due to the height of the 16 storey tower, as well as the density being too significant for what the area could accommodate. Those providing letters and support expressed a welcoming desire to bring new people into the neighborhood, especially those in need of affordable housing who have maybe been previously displaced. And they also acknowledged and appreciated the contact sensitive massing that was achieved through the planned unit development through the sub areas and the variation of height. I do know that additional public comments have been forwarded to your attention. So there are more public comments and what are illustrated here on this slide in regard to the review criteria, we have all five and I'll also jump into those associated to the beauty portion, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. Comprehensive plan, which was recently adopted, provides six key vision elements. And I'm going to highlight a couple here today. The first of which speaks to Denver is an inclusive, equitable community with a high quality of life for all residents, regardless of their income level, race, gender, ability or age. I think this is a really key vision element as we think about this rezoning application on the slide is a variety of strategies that comp plan puts forth that are supported by this rezoning couple that I would just like to highlight is that this is located and the PWD portion is located two blocks north of Colfax. The finger southern portion is one block of Colfax, which provides high capacity transit. This is a mixed use development, mixed use beauty that allows for community serving uses as well as employment within the the hospital use is being retained. So we are increasing those housing unit uses and the location that's appropriate with these strategies. We're also ensuring that there's a greater mix of housing in its commitment to provide two and three bedroom units to ensure that not only singles but also families have access to this housing that is affordable and that every neighborhood should provide a complete range of housing options. So West Colfax is not only a single unit and two unit and multi-unit, but also multi-unit. And I also want to talk a little bit about environmentally resilient strategy is to promote infill where infrastructure and services are already in place. The site is very unique in the fact that it is two entire city blocks, one of which is just a surface parking lot with such close proximity to Sloan's Lake Park, which is located just to the northeast of the site, as well as a regular street grids, we already have that infrastructure in place. This is an appropriate place for infill to be occurring as well as encouraging mixed use communities which this beauty would allow for for residents to live, work and play in their own neighborhood. We have employment on the site. We have community serving users, we have residential and there's a great park immediately adjacent jumping into blueprint. Denver Land Use Built Form Strategies once again talks about the encouragement of higher density, mixed use development and transit areas, and especially in community centers, which this area is designated from. Blueprint Denver It also talks about increased density and exchange for desired outcomes, such as affordable housing. This concurrent development agreement associated with the rezoning requires more than 50% of the dwelling units to be affordable. So this is certainly an exchange that is found to be appropriate. And then we also have strategies to rezone out a former Chapter 59 and bring the city into closer conformance with the Denver zoning code and also like to reiterate some of the key policies in the housing section of Blueprint. Denver speaking about increasing affordable housing and mixed income housing, particularly in areas of service and amenities. I've already spoken about the transit as well as many of the amenities such as the park and the recent. Redevelopment to the west of St Anthony's and amenities along Colfax Avenue as well. We also once again see more policies and strategies about expanding family friendly housing to which this agreement ensures and speaks to capturing 80% of new how the housing growth in regional community centers and corridors. And as I made note, this is in a community center. Once again, we're also trying to reinforce many of the strategies as found in housing and inclusive. Denver. Speaking to the design, quality and preservation, we have guidance to implement additional zoning tools to create appropriate transitions from higher intensity centers where they are close to residential low places. So as you can see in the sub areas of the city, this provides an adequate transition from the higher intensity, uses found within the center of the site to step down to the lower intensity of residential through a land use tool and then also talks about setting stronger street level active use requirements in community centers and community corridors. The beauty requires higher transparency and activation standards on 17th Street, which is a residential collector consistent with these strategies in terms of the future neighborhood context and the guidance that blueprint gives us. The larger portion of the site that will be rezoning that is proposed to be risen to the Pdg 21 is identified as an urban center neighborhood context, and the southern portion is identified as an urban neighborhood context. The larger site is identified as a community center, which is intended to accommodate a variety of uses and speaks to how heights can generally be up to 12 storeys and taller areas and should transition gradually down to the surrounding residential areas. I'll speak a little bit more to that recommendation on the following slide. And then the portion south of 16th Avenue speaks to the low residential, which is predominantly single unit into unit, which is consistent with U2. You see, 17th Avenue is identified as a residential collector intended to accommodate higher levels of residential trips, and all of their streets are identified as local. A key page in Blueprint Denver is found on page 66, where it talks about how Blueprint Denver is a citywide plan and therefore cannot provide specific, detailed height guidance on all aspects of a place. And therefore, when considering applying building heights through Blueprint Denver, the following considerations should be made. I'd like to highlight two of the bullets, especially where it speaks to transitions, including transitions from higher intensity to lower intensity areas which this beauty does provide, as well as achieving plan goals for community benefits, including affordable housing, which this also does provide. So therefore the flexibility granted with a blueprint, Denver does find the building heights to be appropriate and consistent. Additionally, the growth strategy area is a community center and it is intended to capture 80% of new housing and job growth throughout the city and I should say not the specific site, but growth areas in general. The portion to the south of 16th Avenue is considered all of the areas of the city where modest growth is intended to occur and would be allowed under you too. You see, in terms of consistency with the adopted plans that are specific to this area, we have the Blessed Colfax Plan, which was adopted in 2006, and as you can see, the site below is clearly identified as a residential growth opportunity area where additional reinvestment and intensities are intended to be commentated in these sorts of areas, ranging from anything from single family homes all the way up to rowhouses and condominiums. Speaking to higher intensity parts of this neighborhood should transition to the prevailing neighborhood pattern and take advantage of significant infill opportunities on larger than average development sites. Other than St Anthony's, which has been redeveloped. There are no sites of this size in the West Colfax neighborhood, so it's definitely larger than average development site where that residential growth is intended to occur. Finally, I'd like to address housing and inclusion in Inclusive Denver, which was adopted in 2018, and it speaks to core goals of creating affordable housing in areas vulnerable to displacement and areas of opportunity, preserving affordable housing quality, promoting equitable and accessible housing, and stabilizing residents at risk of involuntary displacement. Two key recommendations that are applicable to this rezoning request are to expand and strengthen land use regulations for affordable and mixed income housing through Blueprint, Denver and Supplemental Implementation. This beauty and concurrent affordable housing agreement certainly strengthens the land use regulations to allow for development consistent with these plans to allow for affordable housing as well as mixed income housing. And recommendation number five speaks to the promotion of new affordable housing, mixed income and mixed use, which this is, and that the city should find partners to explore new financing mechanisms. And this is a great partnership where they are finding new ways to support mixed income developments, where we have market rate units all the way ranging down to 40%. AMI additionally, the plan identifies West Colfax as an area having a wide variety of culture and diversity. But due to a sharp increase in rent and housing prices, many residents have become vulnerable of displacement that is involuntary or where it has already occurred. And therefore this includes further strategies to promote mixed income housing stock to which this rezoning application does. Two other criteria which are speaking to uniformity of district regulations are further detailed in the staff report, as well as furthering the public health, safety and welfare by furthering the strategies of our adopted plans and providing housing and services to residents. The justifying circumstances as the reasoning out of former Chapter 59, as well as the significant reinvestment happening a couple of blocks away to the west at the St Anthony's site, as well as if you look to the east of the site, anything that's zoned GMU three has almost entirely been redeveloped into multi-unit townhomes or of the like. Additionally, consistency with neighborhood contact zoned district purpose and intent. Pdg 21 is based off of CMCs eight, which is intended to accommodate urban pedestrian friendly centers with a mix of uses, including housing and jobs. And you, you see, is in urban context intended to accommodate low intensity residential uses of single unit and to unit on minimum zone lots of 5500 square feet. Additionally, because for the northern portion it is a pretty we have additional criteria which all run through here quickly and further outlined in Article nine, Division six. Speaking to the unique and extraordinary circumstance of the site, the former Chapter 59 party is highly restrictive in terms of what can be allowed on that site. And while it contemplates a significant plan for medical and associated care uses and parking facilities, that period is no longer relevant to the current needs and city policies for this area. It's also important to acknowledge that this PD is not intended solely as a vehicle for development to get around neighborhood plans, but rather it is consistent with the planned urban center and urban neighborhood context. And it's also intended as a mechanism to ensure that the development is compatible with the adopted citywide and neighborhood plans. It's also important to note that with a beauty there must be significant public benefit. Key ones of this is affordable housing commitment with focus on deeper levels of affordability than we otherwise be seen. Additional pedestrian activation along 17th and Newton requirement to not have any visible parking that is on a street facing facade to minimize impacts to neighbors as well as a multimodal connection between 16th and 17th to improve mobility options throughout the neighborhood. It's also important to note that this development proposal is not feasible under any other zone district in the Denver zoning code and would require an unreasonable number of variances and waivers and conditions. And it is intended to establish permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses and adjacent subject adjacent to the subject property , and that the Puti District Plan establishes building forms that are compatible with the existing building forms, or which are compatible through the appropriate transitions which are done through the sub areas. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on the findings of all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have 43 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what I will do is call up five at a time to the front row when I call you up. If you could come up here and be ready to speak when your name is called so that we can get through everybody and we don't lose people who have to leave before they're called. So if you'll just come up and then step immediately up to the microphone when your name is called, or call five at a time. And also, if you if someone has already made the points that you would like to make, you do not have to use your full 3 minutes. You can, you know, say who you are, where you're here, and support our opposition and agree with things that have previously been said. But those 3 minutes are yours to use. Our first speaker is going to be Councilman Paul Lopez. And while he is working his way up to the microphone, I'm going to call five. To sit in the bench are Brian Conley, Karen Cyr, George Male, Britt Nemeth and Teresa Saint Peter. If you could come up to the front row. Guzman-Lopez Mike Photoshop Thank you, Mr. President, and council colleagues. I wanted to give the opportunity for this rezoning to be heard before council. Therefore I filed the application and I stand in front of you and on the dais at which when I am done, I will leave. And PD former Chapter 59 currently requires that all property owners within the PD sign the application. The portion of the PD essentially is south of 17th Avenue. It is under the ownership of a single owner that was unresponsive to our requests to join in the application for three years. Several attempts were made to discuss a potential rezoning application prior to filing the application from both Zocalo and my council office with no response and no interest from Mr. Amo Almond. Azari And until the rezoning was scheduled for a hearing in the Planning Board. As you know, the only way to rezone a former Chapter 59 PD without the owner's authorization is to either have council member or the manager of CPD file the application. As you as you've seen in the report, this is this PD is outdated for the neighborhood. There have been several changes, the conditions of which on a lease brought to your attention. It would allow for more updated zoning. It's especially important to point out that the developer has been forthright, committed to making the project 50% affordable with 160 units, two rental units at 60%, 50 and 40% of area median incomes. The project is also going to have 64 164 sale units, of which a minimum of ah 7% or eight units, whichever one is greater. And this will be sold at or below EMI, the remaining affordable for a period of 99 years. This creates a real pathway to homeownership, especially for families. And having said that, has a strong commitment also to housing families by creating two and three bedroom units are also several other commitments that have been recorded via a development agreement recorded with the city and a good neighborhood agreement. A good neighbor agreement. Zocalo has met with the community for over three years to discuss improvements, solicit and implement feedback for the project. My office has done the same and as advised by our by our council, I will be recusing myself from the vote as the applicant for this rezoning and will be leaving the chambers to uphold the public hearing process and to make sure that there is due process. So with that, thank you. Thank you. All right. First up, Brian Conley. Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly with the law firm of Otten Johnson. I'm here representing Zocalo Development, which is the developer of the project that is proposed for this site. I signed in as as being able to answer questions. Mr. David Zucker from Zocalo is going to hand in some materials for the record, which will include a memo that I authored pertaining to some concerns that were raised by members of the community relating to fair housing issues. In addition to being a land use attorney who works with you all frequently, I have also I'm the lead coauthor of the ABA's leading publication on the ABA being the American Bar Association's lead publication on fair housing and Land Use Issues. And I've authored several articles on that, so I'll be available for questions later. Should. Should time permit. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Karen's here. Hi. My name is Karen Cyr and I have lived in West Colfax for almost 19 years. I'm raising my four children there and it's been my home for two decades. I understand neglect. I know this neighborhood has long been forgotten and set aside, and I understand how exciting it is to finally have some economic attention in our community. So I'm here to talk to you today about community, not just the existing community who deserves a voice and representation in this discussion, but bigger than that. I want to talk about community as a goal. What makes us feel connected? What? Besides, housing is important for quality of life. One of the main ways to connect is in non-threatening, open, open spaces. We meet walking out to our cars, are sitting on our porches, calling out to invite one another for a chat. Well, sometimes we invite one another inside our homes. The bulk of the time is in these common open spaces. Anybody who has ever lived in an apartment knows that the place to meet your neighbors is not the hallway. That can feel invasive. And meeting in a parking garage is creepy, not to mention potentially dangerous. So where does this development have non-threatening, relaxed outdoor spaces for people to meet? For community to be built. Renderings today show solid building all the way around the block. No courtyard, no side yard, no outdoor sitting space. The developer is saying that the park is where that should happen. I'd like to agree that the park is a wonderful resource we all love, but it cannot and should not be an excuse to neglect, including common space for the residents of this neighbor of this development to enjoy . Research shows that a critical piece to maintaining the health of small unit high density living is the need for outdoor common space. Blueprint Denver describes the community center as having open spaces to promote social interaction and respond to the distinct uses within the center. This development is not building anywhere for the community to be. Denver Residents Deserve more than a big box people warehouse. Blueprint. Denver has named this area community center and the developer is calling this proposal that. But functionally that is not what they are building. This proposed development doesn't include anything to draw people in. It doesn't even provide open space to its residents. It has been suggested that those who have any questions or concerns about the development as proposed are the ones lacking imagination and progressive thinking. Denver Council People. I would like to assert that this development as proposed is not progressive enough. We need to respond, not react to the affordable housing need. And I and I urge you as representatives of the people of this community and citizens of Denver to respond to the affordable housing crisis in a way that builds community, not just warehouses people. This is an opportunity in West Colfax. Vote no and let's make sure it gets done right. Thank you. Next up, George Mitchell. My name is George Maile and I reside at 1075 South Garfield Street in Cary Merrill, District six. I am the President of the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation. And for those unfamiliar with it, we are the umbrella organization of over 90 registered neighborhood organizations encompassing 200,000 plus homes. And I am not being paid to be here. A little latitude first. But, Mr. President, if I may, I want to thank the president, council members and those leaving for the service you have rendered to this city. I thank you very much for that. Thank you. Also, one more thing. Channel eight needs to be its own entity and have achieved this. This is specific to this item. If you could speak to this item. Thank you. First of all, I'm here to point out that as a result of the issue of disparate impact and equitable treatment of affordable housing, residents raised in the rezoning being considered by you this evening, the I.N.S. Zoning and Planning Committee has formed an equitable, affordable housing subcommittee. The charge of this committee is to study how development plans in Denver that include affordable housing units can ensure that all residents of the entire development are treated equitably with regard to access, distribution of units, open space and other amenities, and that residents of new housing developments should not be physically separated by income after approval by the ANC delegation. The results of the analysis and recommendation will be presented to City Council, Community Planning and Development, Denver Economic Development and Opportunity and the Housing Advisory Committee, with the recommendation to develop a city wide policy or ordinance to address this important issue. More importantly, I and C's mission is to advocate for Denver citizens by bringing together, informing and empowering Denver neighborhood organizations to actively engage in addressing city issues. The extent to which the three active, residentially based Sloan's Lake and West Colfax, Arnaud's, have been involved over a long period of time. In addressing this rezoning. The fact that they. Have taken votes and taken strong positions in opposition to it, and that the residents surrounding the proposed rezoning have suggested they have successfully, legally protested, should not be overlooked, but should be respected by this esteemed council. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up is Frank Neiman. Hello. My name is Britt and I live in the Tuxedo Park neighborhood less than a half a block from the proposed development. As a newer resident on the block, we purchased our home with the idea that at some point a reasonable structure would be built on the parking lot at the end of our street. I'm sorry. In no way, shape or form could we have imagined a plan of such size and scale as the one that is being proposed coming from Congress Park. The allure of this neighborhood was that of more diversity, a smaller community and neighbors who could get to know and interact with this sliver of Denver has been just that. That is not to say that ourselves or our neighbors are opposed to this to development. In fact, it's just the opposite. To share a picture of what this community is like, we were welcomed with open arms after we purchased a new build that is different than the rest of the original homes on the block. This is an example of how the community is not opposed to further development nor affordable housing. We would all welcome a reasonable structure consisting of all affordable housing. I believe that as the city grows, the developers have an ethical obligation to provide appropriate open space beyond the overcrowded city parks for the residents. As someone who works directly with fellow developers in Denver, I have seen this done well in a way that incorporates how structures ultimately affect the community at large. The fact that this particular development is being built adjacent to a city park, which is over 60% water mass, should not be an excuse to subsidize the developer developers ethical obligation to provide open space for for its residents. As a Denver architectural photographer, I am constantly working with developers, architects, builders, structural engineers and more. And as I spoke with them about the details of this project, they became increasingly abhorred. The people I work with in this industry are here to better Denver and the neighborhoods that they develop within. I am simply asking that the same standard be applied to the proposed development at 17th and Newton. I implore members of the City Council to please strongly consider those mostly affected by the development, the neighborhoods surrounding it, and how the vast majority of us oppose this development in its current form and its rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Teresa Saint Peter, and I'm going to call the next five to come up to the front row Jonathan SHAPIRO, John Rickey, Dan Larsen, Daniel Gonzales and Anne Stanwick. Good evening. Denver City Council. Theresa St Peter. I live at. 1235 East 12th Avenue. I've lived in Denver for over 20 years. I've worked in communities across the city. My history here is a. Serious investment in Denver's. Future. I've witnessed a lot of change in Denver, and with that change, I continue to fall more deeply in love with Denver's character. Do I live in the slums like neighborhood? No. But would I support a project like this in my neighborhood? Absolutely. Central to the problem of white gentrification, traffic and high housing prices exist today is that. Too many zoning decisions are made. On the myopic, loud shouts. Of Not in my backyard. Neighbors. I get it changes really uncomfortable. But I believe in looking beyond my own front door to continue to support Denver's diverse, interesting culture. And I'm not interested in. Shutting the door behind me. Please, let's not zone things myopically. We're only going to suffer like San Francisco or Seattle if we continue to only consider our land use based on what's in our. Backyards or on the public street in front of our houses. I don't want my ability to park a. Car to take precedence over. Your ability to live near me. I like a. Diversity of neighbors, so that means I'm thrilled to make room. For the. Boomers who have. Single family housing, that want a down zone but need a. Place to live that's. Smaller. I want to make room for the artists and the visionaries moving here who have inspired me. Our Wolf and the Clyfford still museums to locate here. I will most certainly make room for our teachers and the folks that serve me coffee or lunch because I believe they also should be able to afford to live in the neighborhoods. They work in. I'll make room for top paying good community member employers. I'll make room for people instead of cars. Because that also builds environmental alternatives for getting around like safe, reliable bike routes and bike sharing. Like car sharing, like sidewalk networks that mean all of us can get around more easily. And heck. Yeah, I'll make room for all those amazing entrepreneurs. Who have started fantastic restaurants and food trucks with delicious offerings. In Denver. So I don't mind seeing an empty lot converted into the ability to have cool neighbors and what they bring to my city. I hope this happens at 17th and Newton. I hope it happens in my neighborhood and I hope it happens across Denver. Because this project is ideal. It is the perfect. Example of what Denver needs more of, and I believe your support today will inspire other developers to create more of the same. The 17th The Newton Project has. All of the right features to be really nice place for diversity of people with diverse housing and transit needs. Please support this project. Thank you. Next up, Jonathan SHAPIRO. Hello. Members of the City Council. My name is John. I live less than half a block from the proposed development site. When I bought in the neighborhood, I knew it was likely that the parking lot in question would be developed in some fashion. And I never had an issue with this. I am both for continual development of the neighborhood and affordable housing in general. My issue in opposition to this rezoning lies with the process in which these current developers have gone about this and the massive size and scale of the project completely out of alignment with community wishes. Despite the developer's claims of community involvement, I only even heard about this potential development when I received a piece of mail from the city about the rezoning only a few months back. At first I was excited as I thought development in that area may bring further amenities to the neighborhood. But upon understanding more of the proposed details, I was taken aback by the audacity of what they were trying to build and far too small of a space. This is a neighborhood of mostly single family homes, including a few duplex and townhouses. The parking lot is surrounded on three sides by single residential roads. The infrastructure and current build in the neighborhood is nowhere near set up for something like the developers proposed. I welcome any city councilmember to please come walk the neighborhood around the proposed site where the problem will become immediately evident. Since learning about this developers plan, I have constantly heard the refrain from them that they have to update the zoning because it's the only way to make their numbers work. With the amount of affordable housing they want to include, despite the fact I have chatted with numerous other Denver developers who disagree with this, that this is the only way it can be done on many different grounds. It's kind of besides the point. The Denver City zoning code, as far as I understand, disallows using the economic impact for the developer as a reason to allow rezoning. And it feels like that's exactly what they're trying to do here. The developer knew what the zoning was in the neighborhood when they bought the land, and making a grand plan that requires a rezoning is unacceptable in my eyes. The developer would be welcome to build whatever they desire within the current zoning code, but trying to drill for it through new zoning so the developer can profit more at the expense of the community, including its future residents that will live on the developers property should never be allowed by the City Council. It's admirable that they want to provide so much affordable housing and the community would be fine if the entire development was affordable housing. That's not our issue at all. What is an issue is the massive size and scale in given what the neighborhood could currently actually support, which is a development nowhere near what this developer's proposing and using as their primary reason. They require rezoning. Allowing the rezoning proposal in its current form will likely have a myriad of unintended consequences on the surrounding area. That is why so many people here today who actually live in the neighborhood oppose this plan. The developer is trying to make this whole issue about diversity and affordable housing, something everything in our community currently embraces wholeheartedly. It's not an issue from our perspective. We love that, but we care about our future neighbors and we don't want to see them put into a space with no designed open spaces, not large enough to support them and their families. Please vote no on this rezoning application and demand better from developers in our city when engaging with their communities. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Ricky. Hello. My name is John Ricky. I live in Sun Valley about a mile away from the development, for what it's worth. I support the development and I hope you will as well. I'm not here tonight to defend this rezoning because I don't feel it. Needs defending for it is self-evidently a good idea in a city with ever increasing prices for housing. This rezoning will allow hundreds of new homes. To be built, some affordable which are desperately. Needed, and some market rate which are also desperately needed. This zoning allows those homes to be. Built across the street from a large park, which is exactly where the city should be putting density. Think of how well-loved and well used Cheeseman is. On almost no one drives there they walk. That is good city design. It puts these hundreds of people two blocks from Colfax, the major transit corridor in the city, allowing for a car light or car free lifestyle. From Colfax, you can reach from Golden to Aurora and you can access tens of thousands of jobs and services from entry level to professional without ever getting in a car. Many people choose not to, and many don't by necessity. This location provides for that. Option and that need. But as I said, I'm not here to defend the rezoning. What I'm really here to do is attack the attitude which says that Denver is full and that neighborhoods are under attack, that parking is more important than housing, that views win out over affordable housing, that assumed traffic impacts justify an attitude of exclusivity. Of I've got mine of pulling up the ladder. I don't believe we can be a great city or even a successful one with such an attitude. No city has long remained great by keeping people out. Many a city has driven itself to ruin by attempting it. Hashtag Boulder. This rezoning is a. Way to open Denver to more people. People in need and people with means. Hundreds of people looking for a home, but. Who weren't allowed to be part of this conversation. People who hope and wish and would fight to be part of. And contribute to a great city. Why would we stand in their way? Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dan Larson. Good evening. My name is Dan Lawson and I live at 1557 Main Street, one block from the planned development. I've lived in this neighborhood for 14 years with my wife and three kids. We moved into the city to find diversity for our family that we could not experience in the suburbs. We love all those who live in our community, no matter their income level, and I welcome development and want to see more affordable housing options. But I oppose this rezoning and building plan because it is dangerous, out of scale and incompatible with this neighborhood. This developer has presented a plan that offers affordable housing as a peace offering in exchange for the desire to build a luxury high rise that towers over all the other buildings in the area. Although the developer has stated they've included the neighborhood in and slogan and its organizations in this proposal, it should be clear today that affected residents have been excluded with a take it or leave it plan. Many wish to characterize this as a divisive issue with those in favor and against polarized around the concern for affordable housing. However, we appear to oppose this are not against affordable housing. We're against a massive development out of scale with the neighborhood and a developer who's turned a deaf ear to the needs of those who live in this part of the city, most of whom are low income families and renters being driven out by million dollar residences. There has been little thought or consideration to the way that this development in this scale will remake the neighborhood and may provide some affordable housing. But it will do so at the expense of many, if not all, of the low income residences that we already have in the area. We all need to be concerned about not just whether we have affordable housing, but the way it's achieved. The developer claims they have no responsibility to conserve open space as part of their plan. Instead, they place the burden on Sloan's Lake Park to provide any and all free and open space for the residents. The developers claim that this is one of the largest parks in Denver ignores the fact that the acreage of Sloan's is over 60% water and the remaining land is already well-used, often crowded. And that is before we've experienced the full impact of the completion of the St Anthony's development. A vote against this particular plan is not a vote against affordable housing. We need a plan that, as the West Colfax Plan states, promotes compatible development that reinforces our diverse urban environment. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Daniel Gonzales's. Hello. My name is Daniel Gonzalez. I live in the 3400 block of West 17th Avenue, two and a half blocks from the proposed development site. 11 years ago, shortly after I graduated from college. I chose to make my home in Denver. I did so because I believed Denver was a city with a bright economic. And transit oriented. Future. Then a few years ago, once I'd finally saved up a down payment, I bought my home in the Sloan's Lake area, and I chose that. Neighborhood precisely because of the redevelopment of the former hospital site Sloan's adjacency to downtown and the variety of transit options. That exist in the neighborhood. I actually. Work downtown. I live on 17th Avenue and I commute every day using RTD for these same reasons. This location is exactly. The sort of place where we should be encouraging developments like this. Density is not a dirty word, and density is appropriate at a transit. Rich in infill sites such as. This. Sloan's Lake has a high rate of homeownership. It also has a high. Diversity of incomes. It's part of what makes the neighborhood so vibrant. And this project supports those two goals of. Homeownership and diversity income. The existing zoning is antiquated and designed. For a hospital expansion. I, for one, don't want a tower with a zero setback. Coming right up against the street. I love. That the proposed pad sets the tower back deep into the site where it's not casting shadows on any. Of the neighboring properties. The proposed development is a great way to improve the sustainability of Sloan's Lake and add to the affordable housing stock here. Which is why I ask you. Vote in favor of the zoning change. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is in Stanwick and I'm going to call the next five up to the front row in a duet. Michelle, Michael, Keith Pryor, Rhonda martin and Christopher Callahan. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Ian Stanwick. I live at 1641 and 45. Went on a court. I am here in opposition to this project and there are many reasons for it. I am not opposed to higher density. I am not opposed to affordable housing. What I am opposed to is the simple fact that we haven't finished the Saint Anthony development yet in the impact that that thing has had on our neighborhood has been detrimental to everybody that lives on 17th Street. And you cannot deny that to ask us to have to now stomach a 16 storey building and another 260 units in that area at this time is just unfathomable traffic along 17th Street since the big since they started ripping down St Anthony's and now building everything up over there has been ridiculous and I ask you to vote no on this project, or at least to postpone it until we can come up with something a little more creative than just high rises. There's many cities around this country that are doing lots of things for affordable housing. Why are we doing the same old thing over and over and over again? So I beseech you, please vote. No, thank you. Thank you. Next up in a do it. Good evening city council and Denver neighbors. I'm honored to at a teacher at North High School and candidate for Denver's school. Board at large. I want to discuss the meaning behind housing choice. A school choice. And as a neighbors of slums like listen, I urge you to try to see. This project through the lens of someone. Who's not yet your neighbor, but might like to be. So housing choices, school choice. As many of us know, the politics of school choice in DPS are a little. Interesting and difficult to navigate. Yet we all have one goal to send our children to the best school possible. And some families have that real choice. They can send their students to. A quality public school, or they have the. Choice to send their children to another school outside of their. Community. But what if all your. Public schools. Had been shut down? What if the schools that replaced. Them were charter schools. With a hyperfocus on excessive rules and high stakes testing? This is happening in Denver, but it's important to note this is only happening in our underserved communities. Neighborhoods in Wayne, New Sussman and Cashman District aren't seeing this. Are more affluent. Neighborhoods, many of which see little multifamily units also. Have fewer charter schools. We have adults fighting over housing policy. In the meantime, our students are suffering. And as a teacher, I see this. I have several students who live in those communities I described earlier. Their schools have been shut down and now they have to drive 30 minutes out of their community to go to. The next public school. Their families can't afford the. Average price homeless in North High School. In fact, even Denver teachers can afford or can only afford 5.4% of the housing in Denver. We must stop building walls around certain communities. Walls of expensive homes that only accommodate certain groups of people and certain children. In their schools. We must allow projects that allow the middle and lower class. Projects out of affordable housing and projects like this so that we can rebuild diverse communities that have been shoved out by recent gentrification. Helping us usher in a new age of affordability and neighborhood. Schools in Denver. All students benefit by having a diverse range of classmates, and we can not honestly discuss closing the achievement gap between our students and ending the closure of public schools in favor of charter schools. Without. Discussing racial integration, racially biased zoning laws, and high housing costs in Denver. Our families and our working class deserve to live in the neighborhoods where they want to send their children to school. I support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Michelle. Michael. My name is Michelle Michael. I live at 1532 Main Street, less than a mile from the development. So far, it's been made abundantly clear that through this process, the well-being of the existing neighborhood is of no concern. To say I have been discouraged since we were simply a formality in the planning board meeting is an understatement. Denver is a place that can. Provide city dwellers an outlet to the mountains, which is why. Cars continue to be. Relevant here. Having 320 units access their residents on a locals owned road, which has not which was not meant for a building zoned in excess of CMCs three, isn't feasible. The equivalent of this PUD request would be CMC's 16. A building zoned as CMCs 16 require major arterial streets as specified in the Denver Zoning Code. Article seven, Section 72, too. Because this PD, because this is a PD and not normal zoning, there's a loophole. But this PD is not in line with the spirit of the law. This location cannot support the pinnacle style high rise, which it has continuously been compared to. The pinnacle is on a two lane road going in each direction, not single lanes. If lane, instead of placing highrises on streets that can accommodate them, are formerly safe, local streets have become increasingly dangerous. I ride my bike down 17th Street each morning to work and I own a car. The traffic impacts I have seen in the past year from the St Anthony's development are incredible and it's not yet fully realized. The unprotected bike lane on 17th is honestly become very scary. The lack of a traffic study was brushed off in the planning board meeting when the staff member said the excerpt was just a standard blanket statement. However, every developer, engineer and city planner I sent the application to all pointed out the lack of a traffic study as a red flag. All are all Denver projects of this scale filled out with blank blanket statements. In order to get this rezoning passed. It seems to make sense that calling attention to the lack of infrastructure. Isn't in the developer's best interest. Please don't do what everyone else has done thus far. Move forward. Ask questions later. We are not here opposing this rezoning today because there is a proposal for affordable housing on a parking lot surface. We welcome that. We're here because they're offering affordable housing. A rezoning which would not. Otherwise be allowed is being considered. I think I can speak for everyone in the neighborhood. And one. Thing we would like to see, this parking lot developed, but not at the expense of our. Neighborhood. This is lakefront. Property. There's going to be other opportunities. Please wait for the right fit. Set a precedent. The developer should care about the people their development will actually affect. Set a precedent. The developer should actually not just facially, which. Is what the only thing that has occurred. Try to work with the community. Wishful thinking that people won't drive cars is a fallacy. The traffic. Impacts this development will have on our streets will be. Detrimental. Infrastructure is so important and I wish that you would all consider that in making your decision today. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Keith Prior. Hi. Keith Pryor, 2418 Champ Straight. This plan is amazing. If we could like clown David Zucker, as he's done work throughout the rest of this community and coming together with very complex deals that allow for affordable housing, allow for market rate, allow for mixed use, all in the same development. That's what planning is all about. That's what Blueprint Denver is all about. This is what we want as a city because we want it to be walkable. You look at a lot of the neighborhoods that are the most desirable. They are walkable, they are transit oriented, and as a result, they're very expensive. People want to be there. This is what they desire. But yet, if you deny this, you're denying what people actually need, what people actually want, and you're actually furthering the problem that we're having. You can't build your way out of this situation in Denver. We can't add enough housing as fast as we need to. And just by building and saying yes in my backyard is not the answer. You need targeted, affordable housing, the missing middle, the lower income. And unless you actually go out and physically target this type of. Properties, this type of development. No one's ever going to do it, nor are you going to get it to where it's all in one project. If you look at the Walton corridor, you see all affordable in one building, you see all market and luxury. They're not together. They're not going to be together because financing is impossible on these. You're going to see all residential. You're not going to see a mixed use. Because, again, financing does not come together. David has done an amazing thing in pulling all of these things into one development. It is not easy. And by denying this and not seeing it go through to formation again, you're denying the city the opportunity to see a mixed use, mixed income community come to life on a really good opportunity that has the open space. You can't get everything. It would be nice. We'd be in Utopia. We wouldn't be in the situation we're at. That would be nice. Could it be better? Of course it can always be better. That's not to be debated. But what you're looking at is a model, an opportunity that has not been done in this city. And we need to go forward with this because it's critical. This brings together all of these opportunities. And so when you hear other people talking about these pieces of how it doesn't provide open space within the community, it doesn't build community, it doesn't do this. It doesn't do that. If you build another wider road, guess what? You listen your belt, there's going to be more traffic. I've never heard the argument. If you build more people, there's more traffic on that road. Now you do the resources. So this gets people out of the car. It gives them the walkability that they need. Please support this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Rhonda martin. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Dr. Rhonda martin. I reside at 1712 Mead Street. My family has been property owners of this property for over 70 years. I have seen the first flight for life at St Anthony's to its demolition. And so I bought I have responded to a lot of the councilman asking for your support to not go through with this project. On June 10th, it took me 9 minutes to go from 17th in Meade to Sheridan, which is less than a mile. It was 4:00 in the afternoon on a monday. There was nobody leaving the construction sites. There was no event at the Park School at Lake Middle School was not in session. And, you know, this is they say there's no increase in our traffic. Well, that's bull. Also, we currently are male now because of the increase in all, the population gets delivered anywhere between six and 11:00 at night. Sometimes we don't even get our mail because of the lack of the male, you know, force, employment force of mail people. If we increase or if we get affordable housing, that does not actually guarantee that we will have diversity. It will hopefully be there, but it doesn't guarantee it. And we've seen this happen in other communities as well. We also need to make sure that we have the hook and ladders that need to support a fire in a building that is 16 storeys or higher, which we don't have many hook and ladders in the city and county of Denver. Also, we need to increase our police forces right now. And I spoke to some of the police officers are only increasing those who have retired, died or been fired or quit. So we need to make sure that that infrastructure has been maintained in order for us to take care of this. I do applaud Dan Larson on his knowledge and his support for this issue. And I'd really like to make sure that we can try to keep the integrity of this wonderful community of slums like Tuxedo Gulch in its place. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, Christopher Callahan. Good evening, council members. My name is Chris Callanan and I work at 2100 Stout Street down in downtown Denver. I'm here to testify on behalf of Urban Peak. Our mission is to ignite the potential and youth to exit homelessness and create self to determined and fulfilled lives. We've heard from multiple people giving testimonies, asking to hear about the multiple lives that this type of development would impact. And I hope to give insight into that. The youth that we see at urban peak benefit from our continuum of services. They are anywhere from 15 to 24 years old, experiencing a variety of homelessness, from unsheltered to housing insecure. And when they benefit from our programs, affordable housing is often a key to getting them into self-sufficient lives. It is often the key at the end of our continuum of services, and it is very important. They benefit from our programs and they hope to get into a permanent, stable housing situation. And for many of them, that will mean an income restricted unit like the ones being discussed this evening. We recognize also that questions have been asked about the types and quality of the units in this development, and we think this is a good thing for the community to dialog about because oftentimes we are at the crossroads of choosing between meeting immediate needs and long term needs and thus improving and expanding the stock of affordable housing in the city of Denver is an immediate need that needs to be met in the nuances of affordable housing and zoning, I think can wait for another hearing. These are important. That shelter is the important issue that someone who is experiencing homelessness needs. Stable housing is the springboard for things that many of us in the House community take for granted. Study after study shows that stable housing significantly escalates student performance ability to access health and mental health care and follow prescribed medications, and the ability to hold down a job. And maybe even equally importantly, for somebody who has experienced homelessness, a way to connect with community. We do not need to tell you that there is a vast shortage of affordable housing here in Denver, and the income restricted units proposed in the project will provide a much needed influx in units and there is certainly hope for more projects like this coming online soon. When we benefit from being in community, it's important that all of us share and give back to our community equally. Please support this rezoning tonight and provide more opportunities to house our youth and the entire Denver community. Thank you. Next up is Tracy Hill and on by Dimitri Zandvoort, NE, Callie Anderson, Kevin MATTHEWS, Claire Shamblin and Jessica Domingues up to the front row. My name is Tracy Hill. I'm here to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning. I live at 1537 Meade Street in a one story bungalow with my. Husband, my four year old daughter and our canine. Buddy. We've lived here since 2011 and we are within 200 yards of the proposed development. There are people here that believe that we object to the development because we don't want affordable housing in our neighborhood. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us rent our spare basements and bedrooms. At below market. Value, as my family has done for med students and foreign exchange students. We wouldn't objective the 210 story towers that are already permitted under the current PUD. We're entirely designed for affordable housing, but that wouldn't be profitable, would it? The proposed rezoning is about profit. Let's not be fooled. To be clear, and I speak on behalf of the vast majority of my neighbors, we are opposed to the size and scale of this project. In response to opposition from the community, including all three registered neighborhood organizations, the developer has stated that a 16 storey tower of luxury condos has to be built in order to make the project economically feasible. The developers argument is in direct violation with the purpose. And intent of. Pudi zoning. The code clearly states that PWD zoning quote is not intended as a vehicle to enhance a proposed development's economic feasibility. Our neighborhood has a right to expect that City Council will comply with PWD zoning requirements. The proposed parking garage has only 1.25 spots. Per for sale units and. Even less for the rental units. The tenants are expected to share with hospital staff and. Visitors, as well as visitors to the retail and community. Space. This is unrealistic and irresponsible planning. Without a doubt, the excess cars will park in our already badly congested neighborhood streets. As it is, two cars cannot travel in opposite directions at the same time. On Meade Street, which is intended to be the main access more cars, more traffic and inadequate roads inevitably means risk to limb and life. It wasn't that long ago that my neighbor's dog was hit on our street and died in their front yard. Well, I mourned his loss. I couldn't help but imagine. What if that had been my child? A few years back, my parked car was hit by a drunk driver. We were grateful because had my car not been there, he would have continued into my neighbor's yard where six children were playing. I respectfully request that you vote against this rezoning application. Building community. You should not ignore and disregard the existing community. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dimitri Zamboni. Hi. My name is Demetrius Everett NE. I live in North Capitol Hill neighborhood. And you know, I think we can talk about the housing affordability crisis that we're facing right now. But I want to talk about something a little different, and that's climate change. So according to Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment, climate change is one of the greatest challenges to our generation. Cities generate more than 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which makes Denver a key part of the climate solution. Denver's 8050 Climate Action Plan defines how we plan to meet our long term climate goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80% below the 2005 levels by the year 2050. The plan calls for deeper decarbonization in buildings, transportation and electricity generation. An important part of the action plan is Denver Sustainable Neighborhoods Program, which gives residents the opportunity to become active partners in making Denver a vibrant and sustainable community. Another part of the plan is the recently passed Denver Comprehensive Plan, which shapes the future of land use, mobility, parks and recreational resources in Denver. All of these efforts acknowledge that climate change is real, that cities are at the forefront of fighting climate change in a dense, urban, walkable neighborhoods close to parks, trails and transit are one of the best ways to combat our carbon footprint. According to a 2011 Department of Energy report, the US is responsible for 19% of the world's energy consumption, was with residential structures making up 22% of that number, beating out commercial structures which come in at 19%. According to the Energy Information Agency, new apartments over five units have the largest efficiency increases of all building types and use about half as much energy than freestanding houses. Additionally, 29% of U.S. consumption comes from transportation by locating affordable as well as market rates like market rate housing next to retail and mass transit near the corner of the city. Rather than sprawling out into the plains, we can reduce the average miles traveled per person, promote a healthier lifestyle, and help help build more vibrant and interconnected an interconnected community. The the project, the 17th in Newton helps move Denver, the front range and the whole world ever so slightly in the right direction by replacing a city block with which was traditionally dense and active. But for the last few decades, a depressing parking lot. We can help address a macro issue at a micro scale when we, as a city say no to common sense projects such as this, especially when they go above and beyond to address our housing crisis. We're also seeing that we're now responsible for correcting the manmade crime of climate crisis. This is something that we must all address every city and every neighbor. We cannot move forward as a whole if we allow the reservations of a few to hold us back from addressing our global collective problems. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Kelly Anderson. So I gave you a visual aid because I'm going to talk through some numbers. So without question, this is a very, very large building. I'm sorry, could. You could you. Could you state your name. For. I'm sorry. My name is Kayla Anderson. I am in the Sounds Like Citizens group. I'm a vice president on the board there and I live pretty close to the site. This is both large in terms of height and also it's requesting setbacks, you know, from the normal residential or it's requesting variances to reduce the normal residential setbacks. So my question is, why does it have to be so large and why is it okay in this instance to grant a custom non-conforming zone district with variances from the normal standards? I feel that this is a question where details are very important. So I tried to make a visual aid for you here to show this. The justification the developer keeps coming back to is that this is just a conversion of the existing pad, and that would allow no more development than what. There are no more square. Footage than what the current deal would allow. I believe that statement is is categorically false. The existing PWD defines its massing. In terms of formal term is defined in the Denver zoning. Code, which is maximum above grade square footage. The developer has incorrectly redefined this term for his development as non parking usable square feet, and those terms are not interchangeable. The old Pudi allows 2200 80,000 square feet above grade for the buildings that would go on what is now the surface parking lot, a 210 story senior housing towers . In a long term care. Facility in the same area. The new development would have approximately 700,000 square feet of. By this definition of of of gross square footage above grade. This is not an apples to apples conversion of the existing pudi to the new pudi. The difference in massing is very obvious when you look at the renderings of the old Pudi buildings and the new Pudi buildings. When placed into the context of the neighborhood, we have some printouts we made for people that can't see the handouts. And then also there are some pictures in the handouts. When the justification for this Pudi is so reliant on what appears to be this misrepresentation that the new Pudi would result in no more square footage than the old one. I think this is something that the council needs to pay critical attention to. This justification has come up in planning board. It's come up at the hearing. It's been it's in the application. And even in the Denver Post last week, the developer said that we are not adding. A square foot more. Than what is allowed by the current zoning. This is approximately two and a half times more square feet in terms of growth above grade square footage, which is a formal turn in the Denver zoning code than what the old Peabody would allow. I'm not trying to manipulate the numbers here. I'm happy to answer any questions about how I derive this and provide more information later. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Kevin MATTHEWS. Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street. I used to. Live just north, about a mile. Near Highland Square several years ago. And my wife and I are typical Saturday morning. Was to take a walk around Sloan's Lake. It's it would be a nice thing that many more people would have access to that. When I did love it live up. In Highland Square at the time, I used to see a lot of signs that said No high rises in the Highlands. And what was weird is you could look right there and there was a high rise. And so it made me think maybe it's maybe it's not the high rises. I want to talk about climate change because I don't want to pretend that I'm here for altruistic reasons. I'm here for completely selfish reasons. I have a three year old son and I think a lot about the world that he's. Going to grow up into. And I really don't know what that's going to look like. The climate goals. That this city has. 80% reduction by 2050 is simply inadequate. It's an outdated goal. It was a great goal in 2008. Everybody assumed we would turn the Fossett down, but we haven't. So when you when you're talking about your crime reduction goals, I don't know how you're going to beat them. You've an incredible challenge. Ahead of you. But this is a climate reduction project. Don't be mistaken about that. I want to quote someone who writes a lot on climate issues and about growing cities just because he can see it a lot better than I can. He's a writer, but then he Alex Steffen, who is a writer, speaker and a planetary futurist. Well, these cities and climate stable places that refused to take steps to welcome people fleeing climate impacts are unjust cities. People who talk about blocking housing, limiting cities, populations resisting growth are just building a. Different sort of border wall. While cities in the. 21st century are kept close to others, not by ramparts of stone, by housing shortages and high cost of living. Tens of millions of people will soon need to. Relocate from hard hit. Depressed areas to. Places that are safe and more prosperous by centuries. And it will be hundreds of millions of people. We can't pretend to care. Much about justice if we do. Nothing to help. Opposition to building. At scale in places that are. Geographically advantaged, wealthy and or ruggedized against climate is climate injustice. I hope you support this project. Thank you. Next up, Claire Shipman. Good evening. My name is Claire Shamblin and I reside on Mead Street, just south of the proposed development. I'm here to encourage the Council to vote against the MAP Amendment. This development, as proposed, will negatively affect both current and future residents by its density and the circumstances of the affordable rental units. I think it's worth noting that most of the group of neighbors before you today who stand opposed have never been here before, with the exception of Larry Ambrose. We have said yes to every other development in West Colfax. The first issue I take with this development is that of optics and the esteem of those who would be living in the affordable rental units. I and my neighbors aren't just for affordable housing. We are for the people who will live there. I believe strongly that this development would not support the dignity of these new residents. While we applaud the attempt to create affordable housing, the manner in which it has been proposed would serve to stigmatize those living there. There will be separate levels of architecture and construction, separate parking and less of it. The apartments will sit at the back of the lot, away from the lake, beneath and behind the luxury high rise. Affordable housing does not have to be done this way. And if we truly want to create diversity by density, then those living in the rental units shouldn't be made to feel less than by their location within the development. Our new neighbors would be negatively impacted by the density of the development, just as the existing residents would. The density proposed by this development is nothing short of astounding. There would be 136 residential units per acre while the surrounding neighborhood is less than 14 units. Belmar, which is a town center, according to Blueprint, Denver, is 28 residential units per acre. This development would be similar in size to the East River development on Roosevelt Island in New York City. But Tuxedo Park doesn't have the infrastructure or transit to accommodate density on par with that of New York. While I understand the as transportation recommended a traffic study, this is the cart before the horse. A traffic study should have been performed well before we went to planning, much less city council. It would be hard to imagine the council approving the zoning and then coming back to tell the developer to reduce the density. This is especially true when the developer has again and again said it has to be this dense or it can't be built. There are no plans to increase emergency services or school capacity and no plans for new open space. Our new neighbors would be crammed in and expected to get by on the services that we currently have. Our first responders and teachers would be expected to deal with potentially double the amount of work, with no increase in workforce or pay. The public benefits of job creation and economic benefit from this development have been cited many times as justification for the density and configuration. There's no evidence these benefits would be reduced. I respectfully request that the Council vote no to this map amendment request. Thank you. Next up, Jessica Dominguez and then I'll invite Skyler, Caitlin, David Zucker, Flora Mackay, Chad Malik Mullinax and Bobby Roberts up to the front row. Hello. Thank you for listening to me today. My name is Jessica Dominguez. I live in West Colfax. I am also a DPS teacher. I've been a DPS teacher for 17 years. I took the year off to study affordable housing options. I took a development class, and it really was because of gentrification and displacement that I saw in my classroom that I'll talk about later. I've lived in West Colfax for eight years. I'm the co-president of Weaken the R.A.. I have great respect for the board members who serve on we can they they value diversity and inclusion. But the R.A. does not tell the whole story of the neighborhood. It's true that. The R.A. voted against the development. My question is, did that vote represent the community in terms of the racial makeup, economic status and renter versus homeowner in the community? I say no because when I go to the R.A., I don't see my face there. I don't see the babies that I have taught. For 17 years. First graders who in Colfax and Cheltenham, I reached out to those two schools and asked them, Have you heard about this? They were so excited. The families were all on board. No one that I spoke to was against it. They were asking if they could live there. And I want to tell you, I taught in North Denver at Columbia Elementary 40th and federal for most of my 17 years. And outside of the walls, it appeared that economic growth was happening because of new restaurants, new homes. But inside the classroom, my own classroom, I had. Two students that were homeless. One was living out of the car. In another first grade classroom. There was a student who was living with her great grandmother who was displaced, and they had a stay at the school one day while she was sick because they couldn't go back to their. Shelter till 6:00. I recently saw that family at the Volunteers of America on West Colfax, still looking for a home. The instability. Affects their. Achievement. And while we do what we can at the school. Its resources are severely limited. What this development is going to do is going to provide homes for kids where. They can do their homework. We can learn from North Denver, who currently is in the late stages of gentrification. West Colfax is still in the early stages. We need safe, affordable housing because it is the foundation which determines all other quality of life metrics. Kids who experience home stability do better in school. I urge you to support the development because it will encourage the creation of more affordable housing, which will which will create housing stability for DPS children having long term positive effects on their education, on their life. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Skyler Katan. Hello. My name is Skyler. Kate and I reside in the Sloan's Lake neighborhood. Less than a block. From the proposed development. I would be directly impacted. I'm opposed to this project, but wasn't initially. I shared some of the enthusiasm for. A progressive. Community building development the first time I heard about it. Those two and a half years ago today I stand shoulder to shoulder with the vast majority of. Community residents that have come to oppose this project. I'd like to. Briefly talk and clarify the nature. Of the community's opposition and possibly refute some of what we believe to be mischaracterizations. It's just too much. That was what I heard from a gentleman who. Is. Developer friendly. A real estate professional who is being asked to sign the legal protest petition. And it came after he studied the development. He read the rezoning application. He asked for all the literature for. The developer himself, and he came back to me and said, I do not believe in telling developers what to do, but this is. Just too much. That refrain. Is consistent with the common. Sense approach, from what I've heard from. Many residents that we've talked to about this development. It doesn't meet the smell test. It seems too large. We know. The neighborhood. We live there. We know what's what's right and what's in scale. And it has never seemed to be appropriately scaled or opposition. The opposition to date is significant. It's been documented. The weekend vote was 250 people strong with 199 against. The legal protest poured 166 signatures. Of surrounding. Residents. And the opposition. Is not, as. Has been mentioned many times, about affordable. Housing in any way. It's opposition to a plan that has grave concerns related to size and scale, concerns about a design that separates rather than. Brings the community together, and. Concerns. About a process that's void of a collaborative spirit. The West Colfax Plan of 26 identifies our neighborhood as Tuxedo. Park East. And identifies. It in style. And character. And it affords it some level of protection when it comes to future development. It advises reinforcing the character, defining elements of the neighborhood, promoting discrete density. And focusing intense residential development away. From urban neighborhood areas. Nothing about doubling the size and population. Of our neighborhood on 10% of the landmass. Can be perceived as discrete. Let's be briefly remaining time. About the process to date. Issues with the density. With the design have. Been raised. Repeatedly when the responses came and they were felt were few and far between. To reframe stand out first. Is the statement that this has to be done this way. And the other is, if unable to rezone, it will be much worse. These are not the words of a collaborative spirit. And they've put the neighborhood in the position that it's in today. In trying to desperately. Voice our legitimate. Concerns and be heard. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, David Zucker. Thank you. Council Members David Zucker. My work addresses for 55 Sherman Street in Denver. I'm here tonight to speak as the developer of the project requires a rezoning at 1601 Lowell Boulevard. This project consists of two buildings. One building will be for sale units and one building residential rental units. Both buildings include affordable residential. The for sale building also includes market rate. In addition, the project seeks to deliver retail and office space and open space in the form of an urban plaza. I'm asking you tonight to approve this rezoning because it will allow for the helping to address the intense, persistent and unmet need for affordable housing in the city. The development agreement in front of you tonight legally requires that the affordable units be built. The affordable rental will be available for people with incomes at 40, 50 and 60% of of the average area median income, and will be deed restricted for at least 30 years. The Affordable for sale units will be workforce housing limited to those earning less than 100% of the area, median income and deed restricted for 99 years. Both the rental and the for sale units will include two and three bedroom units to address the needs of housing for families. According to the city's 2018 housing report, 667 units of affordable housing were built in the city in 2018, which required almost $13 million to assist in their development from the city. This project alone would deliver almost 25% of the total number of units delivered in 2018 with no city funds. What we do need from City Council is an approval of this rezoning that will allow for the additional of residential uses and a shift in massing within the current density that results in higher heights than is currently allowed. At the center of the block, the proposed square footage and the square footage of the current feud remain the same. These changes allow for the subsidization of affordable units. This is a good deal for the city. It's a good deal for taxpayers and a great deal for people who need affordable housing and in a decent, safe neighborhood . I will draw a bright line for them, for the members in this chamber tonight. If we can't develop affordable housing on what is currently a vacant parking lot in a neighborhood that has experienced significant displacement across the street from open space close to transit. After more than two years of process and compromise with community, it meets all review criteria for rezoning in the city of Denver and is consistent with the review criteria allowing for a pod. Then I'm at a loss for where affordable housing should be built. The if I could the council secretary to distribute both a legal memo as well as a neighborhood agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Flora Mackay. Hello. My name is Flora Mackay and I live at 1538 Equipment Street and I've been there since March of 2010. And I'm going to talk about the voice of Tuxedo Park residents within the process. I do oppose this development. First of all, a working group was formed through weekend. I served with this group. It was a thoughtful, thorough working group who then voted and sent suggestions and concerns to the developer in a letter dated for April 25th, 2018. For more, you can call President Lee round and no response. And there was no response for eight and a half months. We can prove co-president Jessica Dominguez contacted the developer by way of email to find out the specific points that had been addressed. The developer indicated that he would respond presently. However, an incomplete response came over a month later, and it did not address some of the concerns and suggestions open space and building heights and so forth. The voice of the working group regarding many of the suggestions and concerns. For the community was not addressed. And it's been ignored. And there was a vote from residents of weekend regarding those in favor or oppose. 75% of more than 250 people voted in opposition. A letter from weekend was read and submitted to the planning board asking for a no vote or delay in zoning application process. That request was not honored. Sloan's Lake Neighborhood Association has submitted a letter of opposition prior to the date of the public comment there. So how is it that the voices of the R.A. is represented? Resident representing resident opposition of this degree have been ignored. Okay. And then also on Sloan's Lake Citizens Group had a recent straw poll of the board of directors. 14 opposed one. Yes. Now the voices of three resident RINOs have brought forth strong opposition and should not be ignored. And then also on before the working group was established, after one of the meetings, I quietly mentioned to the developer that I would not be back. He asked why and I responded. What's the use? In my heart, I discerned you was going to do whatever he was going to do. And at some point I did come back trusting the process. And I am hoping that council is sincere, responsible for the public will consider that we want to be part of this. And I do ask for a no vote. And I thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chad Mullinax. Hello. My name is Chad Mullinax. I've lived in West Colfax for over seven years and we live near the 17th and Newton project. I'm actually here for confession. As someone who has developed town and housing in the West Colfax area that I have disregarded the idea of gentrification with justice in my own neighborhood. You already know that housing has become unattainable to our long time, low income Sloan's Lake neighbors. The data is overwhelming, and this council is likely more familiar than most with the impact of gentrification. And so we shouldn't pass up opportunities such as this one to do better. But instead, I came here to apologize publicly to all of my neighbors who have lived their whole life in a distressed, blighted and low income neighbor neighborhood with lower performing schools, higher crime activity than anything I ever knew as a child. While there was a time when I lacked awareness of the impact I was having on my neighbors, I can no longer plead ignorance to the injustice that has occurred to my brown and black and low income neighbors and friends. So I'm here to say to them, I am sorry that when your neighborhood began to see signs of improvement, I didn't think about creative ways or participate in helpful housing solutions where you could also benefit from all the reinvestment happening in your own neighborhood. I'm sorry that every housing move I made in West Colfax over the past seven years benefited me and was always to your detriment. I'm sorry that I always attempted to maximize return on investment when giving up just a tiny bit of profit would dramatically transform your life while only having a minor inconvenience on my own. I'm sorry that while I've always said that my words that I'm for affordable housing because who isn't? We've heard it tonight, but have been resistant against those Bible low income projects in my backyard. I'm sorry for fighting affordable income projects under the disguise of transportation congestion, building heights and parking issues. When I'm mostly concerned with my own personal property value and my own economic game and my fear of people who don't look at or have the histories like my own. I'm sorry that I've been unwilling to be mildly inconvenienced when your whole life continues to be an utter financial, housing, educational and family crisis. I'm sorry that you have to move your family again and again and again to make more room for people like me who already haven't made. And I'm sorry that you've had to live in nasty motels, transitional homeless shelters, and even on the streets of West Colfax is too. Rent has doubled and even tripled in such a short period of time in your neighborhood. I'm sorry that I haven't applied the simple gospel that I profess to love my neighbor as myself. I can I commit right here that my next building project to be a low income housing in West Colfax. And in no case should we be letting projects like this one fall through the cracks on the backs of our vulnerable, our neighbors. Thank you. Next up, Bobby Roberts and I'm going to invite Jonathan Hidalgo, Joyce Alms Ransford Kosoko and Jean Parker, Ambrose and Ryan Kini up to the front row. Hi there. My name is Bobbie Roberts and I live 0.1 miles away on Main Street, which is the locally zoned road where the parking garage is planned to be built. One of the beautiful things about this location is its bike friendly access. I'm an advocate for public transportation, commuting to a cycling and using my own two feet. I believe this to be responsible and environmentally green thing to do. I personally cycled to work almost every day. With that said, on cold, rainy days I am driving when I get home from work and I need to prepare dinner. I'm driving, not biking the 1.2 miles to the nearest grocery store to get what ingredients I need. Not to mention days that I want to take advantage of what else Colorado has to offer and head to the mountains. Even if 100% of the residents in the proposed development were bikers, not enough attention has been placed on the need for car storage. Whether or not they use the much. People have cars and they need to be kept someplace. I keep hearing arguments trying to justify the general lack of adequate parking. But by show of hands, I'd like to see how many people in this room do not have at least one family vehicle. I'd like to know more about these unicorn people who live by themselves only ride bikes everywhere and don't own a motor vehicle. I urge you to view the traffic and infrastructure issues that this development will bring in a realistic manner. Reality is crucial to city planning. Please vote against this proposed rezoning in its current form. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jonathan Idoko. Hello, councilmembers. My name is Jonathan Mutoko. I'm a resident of South City Park at the moment with my fiancee. Although I should note we have been looking for a home in these Sloan's Lake and West Colfax neighborhood for the last eight months that we can afford. So we would like to be neighbors to this proposed property. Looking at this proposed property, I find it to be a breath of fresh air in an area that I consider to have been somewhat devastated by slot homes because of its requirement for street activation and below ground parking. It speaks directly to Councilman Espinosa's earlier concerns from our earlier motion about our zoning code not actually require requiring excuses such as commercial uses. In this proposed project and in the proposed change, we see required street activation of it that would allow commercial eating dining uses on the ground floor. I don't have time today to get into all of the benefits that this project has in supporting affordable housing or the good work it would do in supporting housing first initiatives for those moving directly out of homelessness, although that is a part of the proposal. But I do want to speak to a couple of the things that we've heard tonight from those opposed to the project. We've heard a couple of times that this development is out of character with the current neighborhood. And I would like to I know this is a common argument with any proposal. I think the concern or the problem with that statement essentially is that all change zoning requirements are out of character with the current zoning proposal. Right now what we have there is a flat asphalt lot that is fenced in and hardly used. So this would be out of character with that use. But in fact this lot prior to being a parking lot was a dense development and in fact, turning it into a medical center with single family homes around it was out of character at that time. We've also heard a number of folks say that this is bad for traffic and that we don't have the infrastructure for it. I would argue that, in fact, this location is perfect for getting people out of their cars. It's perfect for traffic. I dream of living in a place like this where with Corky Gonzales library down to the southeast route recreational center there, the transit center there, supers of the West Mainline to downtown on bike paths. I would not need to use my card. In fact, target is even close enough that for bigger purchases I could walk there. We've also heard that the proposal does not have any open space. I would note that I currently live in a building with a courtyard and underground parking and no one meets in that courtyard. It's not used. That space is not essential. Before living in Denver, I lived in the Netherlands in a large building with no open space. But because everything was walkable, bikeable, transit oriented, the way I met my neighbors, the way I made those connections was in sharing our walks to the grocery store and our walks, the library and our biking out in places which are sitting directly in front of a park. It's a perfect location to make those meetings with the open space afforded to it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Joyce Arms Ransford. Good evening. I'm Joyce Arms Ransford. I'm a 29 year resident of the Sloan Lake neighborhood, and I am a 38 year veteran of developing affordable housing. I have worked for the Denver Housing Authority, for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Neighborhood Redevelopment Reinvestment. And I currently, for the last almost 20 years, have worked for a small faith based nonprofit called Archway Investment Corp. and Archway Housing and Services. I am always an advocate of affordable housing, but I'm not an advocate of this deal. The reason is in affordable housing. In good design, you have community space for people to come and gather. You have green space for children to play. You have adequate parking. Anybody who thinks a family is going to have less than one car has not been to any affordable housing property recently. I'm building an affordable deal in Lakewood, just down the street, and it is on about the same size lot that this is. We built the first phase that had 60 units and it is a lot lined along line. But we build a roof deck and we built a green community garden in the first floor level. We're serving formerly homeless veterans at a third the site, and we're doing an identical project that has 78 units right behind it, both of them on about an acre of land. We have compact parking, but we have enough parking for each person who resides in the site. So essentially, I, I hate to have to come to a meeting like this to say I don't support affordable housing or this kind of density. If it were just affordable housing, if there were 160 units, that would probably be just fine. But it is not. And the people who are in the high rise are not going to be confined to one car either. Most people of wealth have more than one car, especially if they're in a family. So, again, my my concerns are the parking is too light, the density is too great, the height is too great. The traffic, as was outlined by some other people, not meant for dual car travel. The roads are too narrow. The green space doesn't exist and there are no amenities. In our developments, we provide afterschool programing. We do after summer programing we do ESL, but we have community space. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up. Go. Should come. Good evening. My name is Joshua Kang. I live at 2031 Grove Street in a neighborhood adjacent to this development. I'm here tonight to speak in support of that development. I have two sets of sets of criteria on which I believe this development makes good sense. One, it's consistent with the adopted city plans like staff have noted. We have spent three years through the right process talking about where affordable housing should go and where to direct growth. And this is a perfect example of a site adjacent to job services and transit where this type of development, affordable housing, should go. Both Colfax and Federal are designated transit corridors, and they support the site. Another argument, a topic that's dear to my heart, is walkability. The pedestrian activation of the main floor, pedestrian friendly uses and transparency as well as improved public realm is going to make the place more affordable and more walkable and also more people make welcome, make places more walkable. Walking is a social activity. I also support this project on a personal level. As a resident in the neighborhood, as an immigrant from Poland, I'm married to Chinese, born in Korea. I feel very strongly about inclusivity. We have a lot of conversations about immigration and diversity, and I feel responsible for advocating for affordable and diverse neighborhood developments in all neighborhoods, but especially mine. When I built my dream home in Sloan's Lake, I bought into the quality of life that it affords. But I don't own it. I feel responsible for sharing the amenities and the quality of life with others. I don't own salons like I don't own the running path around the lake. I don't own the sunrise over the Slants Lake Sloan's middle school. I think as many people as possible should have access to this quality of life. I believe that the more neighbors make better neighborhoods. So I support this development. And I hope you will, too. Thank you. Thank you. Next stop, Jean Parker Ambrose. Good evening. It's nice to. See everybody here. I think we probably have worked and getting half of this council elected. So good work. And I know you do. Have to make heavy decisions and look at all the issues and the issue here. I'm asking you this evening to oppose. This project only because and my main major, major concern is that the. Federal rule states for. Every 1000 people, there should be ten acres of open space. This project does not closely meet that and we need to focus more on the history of this area, not in building the is the area out with buildings, for example. This is where the Jews started. They first moved to this area. This is where. Golda meir. Lived. We need to bring about history. Now we have a religious because of this project saying. Well, we're going to turn Lake Middle School into condos. So it's a fervor that shouldn't exist. What we should focus on. Is green space so. That people can walk in this area. There are no winding paths that move through this project. There are no rooftop gardens, green roofs. It's it's a we have to look at conservation. We have to look at the quality of the air. We need to create. Space to go. From Sloan's Lake to downtown Denver. The inside. Track of Sloan's Lake is three miles from Sloan's Lake. Park to the Denver Performing Arts Center. Two miles. We should have beautiful pathways, encouraging walking. This project does not encourage that. The affordable housing is connected to the exclusive units that are being proposed to be built. And that's against the law. I think that's poor, poor doors. And I think somebody else will speak to that. But let's focus on walking, creating paths, little parkways, pocket parks. Let's get back to nature. That's where our focus should be. We don't need to be blocking. I'm sorry, but your time is up. All right. Thank you very much. Next up is Ryan Kenney and invite Larry Ambrose, Paul Vonn, Tianna Patterson, Evan Darby and Jerry Glick up to the front row. Hi. My name is Ryan Keeney. I live at 1121 North Ogden Street and I do not own a car. So there are so many reasons to support this project. First and foremost among these is that there's just so much affordable housing supplied with this project. And I've heard a lot of opponents tonight talk about a lot of reasons to oppose, like there's not enough parking, it's too big, there'll be too much traffic. But when you look at human needs shelters right up there with food and water, everybody needs shelter. And this project provides a lot of it, a lot of affordable below market shelter that would provide housing for people who can't otherwise afford to live in this city. Additionally, as I read on the website, there is retail that will be rented out at break even rates. This will allow the potential for small businesses to come in as opposed to these big chains and have local and generate local economic opportunities as well as more walkability in the area. It is adjacent to so many multi-modal transit options. It's close to downtown. It's close to the 16 and 16. Well, on Colfax, I mean, this is a great place. If we're talking if we care about climate change, it's really important to provide these options to as many people as possible. There's already precedent for development on this stretch of slopes, like there's the lake house just a few blocks away. So this is not just a single family neighborhood. And then also there's been no displacement as a result of this development. This is not one single person will be displaced and not one single building will be demolished because this beginning built on a block size parking lot. So I don't live in this neighborhood. I live in Capitol Hill, across the street from a vacant Whole Foods. I wish they would build a project just like this on this fake a Whole Foods site. I would welcome it. And it would not degrade the quality of life, but improve it. This is one of the best and most inclusive development projects I've ever seen. Many changes have been made in response to neighborhood input. Even so, this was zoning requires, as I understand it, a supermajority as a result of a petition from homeowners in the area, not renters, and not potential working class people who might live in the site. This process, this process is inherently exclusive and in my view, should be reformed to become more inclusive. Supermajority or not, though, if council can't support something like this proposal, our city will never get ahead of the affordability crisis. I hope you all vote in favor. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Larry Ambrose. Good evening. I had written remarks, but I'm just going to talk. I met David Zucker in August 26, 2016. He has to have a meeting to talk about the fellow that he had met doing a joint venture with a guy named Miki Geller who owned the medical center. The medical center has three different operations. It's a acute care center, a nursing home, and a long term and a rehab center. So in this PD that you're looking at, there's still going to be these three different operations. Keep that in mind. You know, we all you've heard this before, a lot of you of the same kind of testimony and a lot of you know and most of you know, David, he's a wonderful, affable, likable guy. David and I have had over the period of three years, I think we had breakfast, we had lunch, we had brunch. We had lots of meetings with people, maybe 100 different people as part of this process. At one point, we even, David, came over to light Hanukkah candles, invited himself over for Halloween. I told him he didn't have to wear a costume. He said he'd put on sheep's clothing. I thought that was pretty funny. So David is a is a person that has a wonderful reputation. And we worked very closely with David to try to come up with what the neighborhood wanted. And all of those meetings, all of those meetings, nothing came out of those meetings. That was anywhere near what the neighborhood expressed to him in terms of height, in terms of scale, in terms of density. And when the plan finally was revealed, it was just over the top. Literally, none of us could believe it. It was just too much. The fact that there's affordable housing came along later. And I guess the question before you tonight is, is anything any rezoning okay or possible because it has affordable housing? And is the quality of that affordable housing such that it's that it's acceptable? Nobody has mentioned also the fact that the 160 units of luxury housing is going to have a gentrifying effect in itself. It's kind of like pouring kerosene on a gentrification fire. Maybe it's not as much as what the three extra units will provide, but there will be something. So you'll think what? I passed out to you today. We have asked David to do a. The like the one that's there today. And what you see before you on the second page is the PD that exists today, that's been redesigned so that it's a more reasonable development. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Paul Wong. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Paul Vang. I live in the Northfield area, Northeast Denver. And I am. I've been a resident of Colorado and Denver for only two years. I'm originally from California, and I would say about this development project that any Californian in any and I'd love it. This is a fantastic project development that encompasses and checks off the boxes for so many things. It's a wonderful mixed use, mixed income, transit oriented development with so many resources, slums, lake. Like many have mentioned, one wonderful neighborhood hospital right next door, 320 units of housing, mixed income housing, half of them affordable housing. That percentage of affordable housing is extremely difficult to come by. And the Denver Blueprint Plan, all the those of who have been intellectuals of all mentioned affordable housing to get that much affordable housing, that research and development is something amazing. So I strongly support this project. I strongly support what's been thrown out workforce housing, this, that, this, that this project provides for those 40% of Amy and above. So just for those who might not know what 40% of Amite looks like for individuals, only $26,000 a year for household affords 37,000 change a year. That's very limited income for someone who wants to have safe, decent, affordable housing. So once again, I urge the council to unanimously approve of this project, and I commend the developer and everyone involved in getting this through. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, T.A. Patterson. In Evening Council. I am Tianna Patterson. I'm the state and local policy director of Enterprise Community Partners. Sorry. I'm sorry for my voice. I actually just. I'm hearing it in my ears. But I am here in support of the zoning change because a stable, affordable place to call home is the foundation for a successful family and a successful community. Many of our neighborhoods are changing at a rapid pace, and buildable land is disappearing. At this moment, Denver needs at least 15,000 more affordable units, and that number is growing every day. That is why Enterprise supports this development, because it offers unheard of opportunities for affordable homeownership and rental opportunity for people between 80 and 40% . Am I in a high opportunity neighborhood and all of this will be done without city subsidy? I think there really needs to be emphasized and celebrated that this is exactly the kind of type of development that Denver should be encouraging our development partners to provide mixed income housing targeted at a high need income levels without city subsidy in neighborhoods that have been or are at great risk of rapid displacement and ginger ification. We know that tackling this affordable housing crisis requires nimbleness and innovation in this project, it sounds like is just that, and I hope the city will support this effort and encourage more models like this in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Evan Darby. Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Evan Darby. I live near the University of Denver and that is because I am a student there. I really appreciate you all staying here so late to hear so many of the Denver members of Denver's community's opinions on this project. But I would like to offer one more. I am only 20 years old, and maybe somebody can yell at me, but I believe I am the youngest person in the room. And for me, I read an interesting statistic recently, which was, according to a real estate firm called UNISON in Denver, it would take me 22 years to save up for a down payment on a home so I can't drink, but my down payment can. And I would be 42 years old before I would be able to live in the city of Denver. In the same way that the residents of Sloan, like who are owners of their homes, have been able to for the foreseeable past. Now, a lot of people have talked about the different issues that have come with this project, the traffic, the height. But for me, it's a different sort of problem. I can't really stand here and say that it's okay to wait for another project to come along, or it's okay to let this this opportunity go by just so that we can have more parking spaces. The city really, really needs more housing, and having less parking spaces needs to be a way that the city can grow, having less space for people to own trucks. It needs to be something that goes away. Because for me and my children to live in Denver in the foreseeable future, we need projects like this. And I urge you, the members of the council to support this project because this is a stepping stone towards creating more density. It's a stepping stone towards creating more housing. And you've heard from many of the residents of Sloan's Lake and many of the residents of Denver, how much they enjoy their houses, how much they enjoy living in in Denver. And if you don't take this opportunity and the opportunities in the future, my generation and my children's generation will not have the same opportunities as them. We will not be able to live in Denver. And that's why you need to vote yes on this project, because it's not only an opportunity for me, it's an opportunity for low income people, and it's an opportunity for the people that I want to raise in Denver and who I want to have a great life in Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jerry Glick. No. Gerry Glick. All right. So Edward Featherstone up next and I'll invite Megan Yankey, Adam Astrof, Michael Hughes, Joseph Dominguez and Megan Sawyer up to the front row. Good evening. Thank you, counsel. My name is Ted Featherstone. I live in North Denver. I'm here representing Zocalo Community Development. Our founder, David Zucker, was up here speaking about so close commitment to affordable housing and inclusive development. I, on the other hand, am here to speak to the community process that Zocalo engaged in. Zocalo takes great pride in our reputation for engaging and listening to the community, and this project was no different. For more than two years, Zocalo had more than 20 meetings with area arenas and neighborhood leaders. And after that, we've made significant changes to the project. First in height and density, the goal is not to up zone, but rather to take the existing zoning, the existing density allowed in the site and reshape it in a way to make it compatible with the existing neighborhood. In the time that we've worked with the neighbors. We have pushed the density towards the center of the site, stepping down dramatically to only three stories surrounding 17th and Newton streets in order to make the project more compatible with the area, in order to mitigate shadows, in order to lessen the visual impact. As far as traffic, we understand that any development will have an impact on traffic. But something that we think is worth recognizing is that this project will actually have a smaller traffic impact than what would have occurred had the existing medical use zoning been fully built out. But furthermore, after working with the neighbors, we made changes to the project and we've designed additional ingress and egress points to disperse traffic and lessen any bottlenecks on any particular road. Finally, we've engaged a traffic management consultant, Mike Hughes, with West Corridor Transportation Management Association to help us in the neighborhood, put together a transportation demand management program to help our residents and the neighbors choose transit and alternative mobility over single occupancy vehicle trips for parking. We've heard the concerns of the neighborhoods and we've worked hard to ensure that our project can accommodate all parking off street. We are providing more than 450 structured parking spaces, which gives our units an effective ratio of almost 1.5. Once you take into account the data sharing between the residential units and the medical office as far as open space in response to specific request from the neighborhood, we have designed into the project an urban plaza at the corner of 17th and Newton Streets, flanked by 4000 square feet of retail meant to serve as a community gathering place. And we have also in our development agreement added in a multimodal bike and pedestrian path that goes north, south through the center of the site to improve connectivity between our project and the neighborhood. In summary, working with the neighbors has undoubtedly made this a better project, and we thank the neighbors for helping us to design a program that better blends with and serves the community in which it sits. Should this rezoning pass, we look forward to continuing to work with the community on items such as traffic mitigation and our community serving retail space. We hope the Council will support our plan and innovative approach to affordable housing and with the service. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Megan Yankey. Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Megan Yankee. I live at 14th and savior in the West Colfax neighborhood. I work as an employee of the city and county of Denver and serve as the vice president of the weekend organization. I'm not here to represent the values or positions of either of those organizations, and I personally did not work on the affordable housing plan with the city in this project. So my views represent my own. I'm here to speak in favor of the proposed development. I'm 35 weeks pregnant and my. Child, when born, will be able to. Walk to school and enjoy extraordinary parks. I am fortunate to be able to take the high frequency bus or light rail or bike to work every day. According to Zillow, there are currently no homes for sale for less than $400,000 in my neighborhood, which, as you've heard from others, keeps out a whole group of neighbors who I would enjoy sharing my space with. So when you say that you need to develop only single family. Homes or live at lower density in. My neighborhood, you are essentially saying that unless you are affluent, you are not good enough to be my neighbor. I witness cognitive dissonance being involved in this process for three years of people saying I value affordable housing, but I want open space. We have to come to terms with the fact that sometimes there are tradeoffs and be careful to not impose our values on other people. My home has no open space. Am I not good enough to live in this neighborhood either? Because I enjoy all of these amenities? And I'm sure that my neighbors as a part of this development, would have the right to enjoy those amenities also of. The proposed development is really only marginally more dense than what is currently allowed and provides much needed affordable rental and for social housing. This is not just in one building, it's in both. The reality is the Opposition wants a low density development at 74 Newton that incorporates open. Open space and design. In a way that would render all non-market rate housing infeasible. And I say that because I'm an affordable housing finance professional. It would require so much intense subsidy in order to provide these affordable units that I think it would be unfathomable for you to support. The development as proposed will provide. Options ranging from housing for. Schoolteachers and police officers to currently homeless families. A very wide range. The opposition. Desires to hold on to an ideal. Single. Family neighborhood in which none of its individuals can afford to rent. Much less buy a home to build equity. I've been thinking a lot about the. Neighborhood in the city in which I want to. Raise my daughter, and it is not one that has a backyard for every child to play. It's a place where children can play together in our extraordinary parks. My values are for inclusivity and diversity in my neighborhood. It is a neighborhood in my values in which her neighbors represent the wonderful diversity that we should come to expect in a world class city. Ask you to please support this rezoning application for her future and for the future of all families that as a result, will be able to call my neighborhood home. Thank you very much. Next up, Adam Astrof. Hi. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361a lady street in Baker and I'm here to talk in support of this project. And I wanted to talk about two things community and open space. I'm a Colorado native. And, you know, growing up here, I'm from Boulder originally. And, you know, I've heard a lot about community tonight. And we do have our community of our, you know, single block like we had the historic district approved tonight. We have our neighborhoods like Sloan's Lake and then we have our city as Denver. And we've seen a lot of changes here. But Denver isn't an island and it's actually not even surrounded by open space. It's surrounded by other communities. The metro area has continued to grow at an astounding pace. We're not really a city of 600,000, almost 700,000 now. We're a city of two and a half million almost that stretches all over the metro area. And, you know, we need to think about that broader community as well, because I've heard a lot of talk about open space in this development tonight. And I love open space. Growing up here, there was lots and lots of open space between Boulder and Denver. Across the front range, there are wide open plains. You know, there were lots of empty hiking trails everywhere, but now that's getting chewed up by more and more and more subdivisions. And the reality is, is every unit we refuse in Denver is another street on a subdivision where people have to drive and they want to drive fast through our city because they want to get home. After a long day of work, traffic isn't being caused by 100 units being built on your block. It's being caused by 10,000 people who have to live 45 minutes outside of town because there's nothing for under $400,000 in this city unless you get really lucky. You know, I read Jane Jacobs book Death and Life of the American City, and she talked about how this can often be a problem that we get really focused on our smaller community and we lose sight of the larger one. So I'd really encourage you all to support this. The developer has actually gone above and beyond in terms of commitment for affordable housing and community serving amenities like the ground floor, retail and the Urban Plaza. This is honestly something you can very rarely say that a developer went above and beyond. This is close to existing transit. It's close to a great park and it would be a great home for for people in Denver. And I believe that this should be voted yes. And as other people have said, if we can't approve 50% affordable housing on a parking lot, where are we going to put it? Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Michael Hughes. Members of city council. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Mike Hughes. I'm a Denver resident. But tonight I'm here as the executive director of the New West Corridor Transportation Management Association. We know that you are often faced with testimony that suggest you have to choose between traffic. Congestion and parking. And affordable housing. We think that's a false choice. We reject the idea that you can use that you could should refuse to to address the affordable housing crisis because of traffic and congestion or vice versa. We've been working with David and his team to outline some proven steps that they can take to change the demand for parking and for single occupant car use. Here are some of the ideas we've asked them to explore. Defining the development as a single neighborhood for purposes of enrolling every resident in our Teds Neighborhood Eco Pass Program, that would mean that every future resident of this project would have a transit pass. Then dedicating part of the project's parking to car share and then working with residents to consider using the combination of car share and their transit pass to choose not to have a car at all, saving the cost of car payments, insurance, maintenance, gas and parking, which they cannot afford to use those funds for the things that they truly need. In addition, things like real time transit schedules in the lobby of the building. A bike share program with an area of the building dedicated to bike storage and repair. Working with public works to ensure that the residents have the safest, most convenient access to the Knox station on the line and to what is obviously one of the best bus lines in the city, and that's on Colfax. We also recommend that the developer do all of this in combination with the renaults and with the neighborhood residents themselves, with the added benefit that we might be able to decrease single occupant vehicle use in the corridor and throughout the neighborhood by helping the current residents change their travel choices to. We. If we succeed, we might make a little peace between existing and future residents. Address climate change. Improve air quality. Put money in the pockets of future residents who are already feeling the weight of escalating housing costs and who spend way too much on transportation. And we can increase the supply of affordable housing at the same time in a neighborhood that is rapidly pricing out too many. We in the applicant have not concluded that work, and I'm committed to one more strategy for them and that is program support ongoing from the TMA for the long term to help residents and neighbors continue to plan their trips to maximize the use of biking, walking, transit, carpools, van pools, car shares and more. We in the applicant will continue to work together, I hope, and I'm committed to continuing to help them find the right strategies for their future residents and working with the neighborhoods so that they are part of that solution. We don't have to give up on solving congestion and traffic. Sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Joseph Dominguez. Joseph Dominguez. I live at 1428 and Tennyson Drive in West Colfax, and I lived in West Colfax since 2010 and actually I was priced out in 2013. If it wasn't for my wife, I wouldn't be able to live in West Colfax right now because the gentrification that's happening, as you know, West Colfax, I'm sorry. Denver leads the nation in Hispanic gentrification. And West Colfax, actually from the year 2000 to 2016, has lost 20% of its Hispanic residents, and Sloan's Lake has lost 16% of their Hispanic residents. And one of the things that we really need to ask ourselves is what are we doing to stop this gentrification from happening? There's no more places to build single family homes anymore. I love the people and single family homes. They're not any spaces to do it. So we have to think creatively. This is the only solution that we can come up with. I can think of no other at this point. One of the things I want to do is think Paul Lopez, because during an election year, he really put his neck on the line to bring this forward and to create an opportunity. And the reason why he did that is for the greater good. He saw the greater good of the community and that it would be a positive thing for the community. So for that, I would I would ask you guys all to look at Paul Lopez and what he did for the greater good and sacrifice that for him . Vote yes for this. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Megan Sawyer. Hi. My name's Megan Sawyer. I live on 14th and Irving. I bought my house three years ago. Three years ago. I share it with my husband and my roommates. I moved there because I wanted public transportation to get to work and backpacks. And I take those every single day. I enjoy Sloan's Lake Parco, Sanchez, Verde Recreation Center, the library, all of which are free or low cost for everybody. There's also shops and coffee shops and places to meet, and I don't want to just be people like me that can enjoy that any time you're going to build a building , it was already zoned for ten storeys. Anytime you do that, you're not going to make everybody happy. You know it is going to increase traffic. But we live three miles from downtown. That's going to happen. And I'm going to say from my experience providing housing as a landlord, when I post my ads, people are desperate. The people that are already living there and I can't afford to subsidize them in my own home. But if somebody else can, if they can come in and do this without subsidy from the city and provide affordable housing that's close to parks, close to public transportation, reliable transportation that runs frequently right in the downtown, right into employment centers. Good on that and I support it. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. We're going to move on to questions by members of Council Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions for Alice and then a couple for David Zucker on Alice. In your presentation, it was clear that this project meets a lot of the criteria and aligns with a lot of our plans, including the two plans that we recently approved the comp plan and blueprint. Denver But can you explain to me and everyone here why traffic impacts aren't one of the criteria for rezoning? It seems to be that when I look at everyone's concern, that seems to be the biggest concern, but it is not one of the criteria for a rezoning. Can you please explain that? Yeah, absolutely. So rezoning criteria, why traffic impacts are not studied or acquired as a part of rezoning. It's a planning board or city council or really any point is because a standard zoned district or even imputed in this case is not a site specific development plan. Rather, it provides a framework of uses and intensities that can occur, but it does not approve a specific development program. And so for us to require a traffic study at this point and to make a determination would not really be useful in the sense that they could actually build a two storey building on the site. And that would also be in alignment with the beauty and an allowed use and would have significantly different traffic implications on the site and require different improvements to the infrastructure system. So the reason why it's not required at time of rezoning is because we are not evaluating a site specific plan. Additionally, I think it's important to note, while I didn't discuss it in our rezoning application in the review criteria blueprint, Denver does provide many strategies, especially in the mobility section, talking about a people first approach and also looking at further reductions of parking standards in many areas, especially when in close proximity to services and amenities such as transit. So does that clarify? Yes. And at what point would a traffic study be done? That's a great question. So once if a rezoning were to be approved on this site, the developers may make a concept application which would then ultimately lead to a site development plan. During the concept plan meeting, they will have representatives from public works and development services, transportation, evaluating that concept and informing them of the specific details that will need to be included in their transportation study at time of formal submittal of site development plan, at which time they will have a formal site proposal moving forward. Thank you. Okay. And David Zucker, I have two questions for you. So the first is several people handed out these images of massing. Can you can you comment on them? Because I think you said in your remarks something about the overall area or square footage or something. Can you clarify that, please? I can speak to the specifics behind this. One of the things that we thought from the beginning was very important was not to increase the amount of usable square footage allowed on the site. The current pod number eight allows for 515,400 square feet of usable density, office space, senior housing, residential units, so on and so forth. We're keeping the same 515,000 square feet of usable square footage. We are providing additional parking. The reason for that is we heard community concern that the park can be provided off street. So we are on the backside of the project, putting in a freestanding parking deck, which may explain some of the differences in massing between what you're seeing. But in terms of actual usable square footage where humans occupy and what actually generates traffic, that remains the same between the existing and our proposed new Pudi. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. My other question is about heights. And so in the existing Pudi, it's eight storeys. It's 110 feet. Okay. Yeah. That specific the story. It says after the first story. I found that confusing too. Okay. I don't know what that is, but I just, you know, just did a little bit of math about sort of the average height. So if it if it is eight storeys in the original one, if you kind of average the heights that you're proposing, it actually averages to eight stories, which I thought was interesting because the 16 storey tower is is actually very small for a plate. Is that. Yeah, the amount of height that actually exceeds eight storeys is I believe it's 11% of our total area of our site. Everything else is less than that. And in large areas, it's well less than that. Three and five stories. Okay. And then, David, you mentioned, I think in your remarks, something about the financing of the project. And I think you said the market rate units are helping you to fund the affordable units. And several people mentioned that the city is not giving you any money for this project. So can you talk about the financing a little bit? One of the things that we wanted to achieve was a blueprint for development that allowed for more substantial inclusion and development of affordable housing. And what we realized was that if we combined a for sale condo tower with affordable as well as market rate for sale units, that portion of the profit could be used from the tower rather than making application to the city or using the Office of Development or or for TEF. So rather than going to city or to Doura, we decided to self solve so that a portion of the profit of the condo tower will go to support the affordable project. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Next up, we have Councilman New. David, can you come back up? Both of you. Let me just get this hand out right here. Go back to the square footage. Question that councilman by. Yes. You know, and do you have this? Can we come here and get this? And because it says 283,000 square feet under the existing pad versus 601,000 square feet for your project, which is quite different than what you said of the comparable usable square footage, because some of that to 83% of the square footage was left out as a hospital. And there's some stuff can you can you comment on this? Is this incorrect or is this correct? It depends on how you slice it. And I said we are counting the whole area north of 16th, between 16, 17th Newton and Law and the usable square footage allowed under the existing putty for and it shows that it says on the total maximum square footage allowed. Okay. And I think two items were excluded, a parking garage and this hospital. So going back to more of a right. Okay. The existing hospital that's there is well less than what's allowed under the existing putty on the what would be the east side of need. We stopped at the site does not run all the way through. So again, when you add up the expansion of the existing hospital, which is allowed under the existing zoning, plus the development on what is would be the west side of Meade Street that in total adds to 515,400. So what you're saying is all homes, it is not proper to exclude those two things that they did to come up with the 283. You need to take the total at the very bottom. Is that what you're saying? That's right. So this this diagram focuses just on the west side. Our diagram focuses on the whole block. Okay. All right. And on the there's a real difference in the appearance of the, you know, the block diagrams that shows the square footage difference, I guess, because it is still related back to this 283 versus your 600,000, just the massing of you, two two pictures there. Obviously, it looks very, very large and out of scale. So. So I frankly can't comment to the creation of those specific sketch up models. I do know that probably the largest visual difference that you see is us, including adequate amounts of off street parking. Again, we keep the same amount of usable square footage, which is as far as what generates traffic, as far as what populates the neighborhood. I mean, that's the really significant number. And in fact, residential units, residential square footage is a lower traffic demand generator than would be a medical office or hospital use. So I think that's the biggest difference in the visuals that you see a lot of concerns that come up about open space, you know, and do you have any open space in this project that you're proposing at all or is that enclosed interior space? We have two different items. The first is we are including a small community gathering place at the corner of 17th and Newton Street, and that was actually called out in the West Colfax Plan. Is that the corner of 17th and Newton should be a neighborhood focal point? Is that outside space? That is outside space and a large is that that will be the plaza itself will be about 5000 square feet and will be flanked by about 4000 square feet of what we certainly intend to be community serving retail space. So restaurant bakery, something that we would work with the renos before we decide what would go there but intended to be a neighborhood gathering spot. Okay. A couple of things that you mentioned, the traffic management plan and the bike paths itself. I don't see them in the good neighbor agreement at all. Were they just left out or what what were the compromises that you gave there in the Good Neighbor agreement to give us an idea of how you worked with the community to reduce the scale of this project. There is a separate good neighbor agreement and then a development agreement, which is the development agreement is specific with the city, the landowner, and so close with the city. And there was a discussion with Councilmember Lopez and with CPD on what was appropriate to put in the development agreement versus in the good neighbor agreement. So we have a multimodal bike and pedestrian path that runs through the center of the site. So what would be made? Streets, and that's in the development agreement, not in the good neighbor agreement. And that was, again, part of our discussions on what's appropriate to be in one document versus the other. The public plaza and the neighborhood serving retail space in discussions with city attorney and the rest didn't make sense to go in the development agreement. So that goes in the good neighbor and you kind of have to triangulate that to different. This is traffic's been a big issue. It seemed like the traffic management plan would be appropriate for the good, good neighbor agreement. Yes, certainly. Just we were just left out. You're planning on putting it in back in our sample for sure that that document is far from finalized. We have we wrote that to show our commitment to the neighborhood, but that's still a living document. Okay. Last question. On the parking, you mentioned something about 1.5 spaces per unit, which includes medical space, as I understand. Can you explain what what that means? Yeah. One of the we think the really innovative things about this project is we have a great matching between daytime parking users and nighttime parking users. The medical office, especially the staff, is primarily there from 9 to 5 hour residents. Their cars will be there primarily after 5:00 and until 9:00 the next morning. So while we are providing more than a .75 ratio for the rental units and more than 1.25 for the for sale units, when you add in the extra 165 parking spaces that we are dedicating for the medical office use, those will be open to all of our residents at nighttime in addition to the retail users as well. So when you actually do the math and what's available at nighttime, when the greatest parking demand will be from the residents, it comes out to about a 1.5. And how has that working on at least those spaces? Yes, there will be leases, but there will also be a parking sharing agreement to. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, sorry, I, I asked them to when when those when the people who presented those graphics, they were holding them up in the back of the room so we could see them. But I don't know that you could. And so I asked them to put those up so that we could see them. And because I do have questions and I heard you. So you're saying that the the in your response to councilman knew you were saying that basically the entitlement that exists on the the existing hospital structure is being used in saying that these are balanced. Yeah, we were looking at the usable density for the site as a whole. So what could be built on that fall area between 1617, Newton and Lowell? There's not an intention to build out the hospital any more than it is. You know, we've we've worked closely in joint venture with the landowner. But are they going to put a deed restriction or moratorium so that they cannot develop to their full entitlement? The way that the way that I understand that the PUD massing, which is very restrictive, kind of caps your height. It really wouldn't allow for any more development of that hospital. You just under the way that the massing is shaped in the pad, there's no room to build it. Oh, so maybe this question around leak on a lease. So if they build, so is there a square footage restriction on the total pad? Because if I look at that pad, there's a eight storey 110 foot limit. If I'm looking at section F, actually, can you go to your slide that says. Consistency with plans blueprint Denver 2019. That shows the actually that's not the one that's I will want to talk to you about that eventually but can you go to the slide that actually has all the different. Oh. Yeah. The different. Steps in the in the the subdivisions of the of the beauty that one so. What are the what are f an e? So F is a maximum building height of 110 feet in eight storeys and is six storeys and 70 feet. The PWD does not have any square footage limitations as that was more commonly used in former Chapter 59 and as many of you have probably seen, is highly problematic because alone it causes for a very restricted development form to occur. And so the Pudi more closely follows the form based zoning, which speaks to building height and feet and stories and provides building envelopes as opposed to specific building footprints. So I think it's also important to note that these are not necessarily buildings where the form in Chapter 59, Pudi specified specific buildings with their appropriate footprint . So while, you know, the apples to apples comparison might be compelling, it's not criteria that staff is evaluating on this case. So the in the in the in the massing study here, the the F level would be somewhere between. So I'm going to use this graphic somewhere between this is which is depicted as six stories and this one, which is typically supposedly ten storeys, is that correct? You know, I'm not really sure. These graphics are a little bit hard for me to count stories easily for purposes of responding to that question. Okay. Then let's just use the developers. Oh, I mean, this this same map that we're studying here, the the F area is anything in the F eight currently eight stories in 110 feet tall. I believe the existing building is either seven or eight stories, but I'm going to look behind me to confirm. Yes. So it's just storeys currently. So it's the footprint that is closest to 17th and low. And so there is the half a block from from between little and Meade and the half a block between 17th and 16th that are still not developed to the full eight stories. Is that correct? Like where the parking access is? Is that what you're referencing, correct? That is correct. It is parking access. So what I'm trying to so if we could now go to that slide. Consistency with plans blueprint Denver 2019. I know you have multiple slides labeled that, but it's the one that has the future places. I'm hoping your graphic is incorrect is it showed so because one of the things that that I wasn't looking at until this graphic that shows the previously we only had f labeled we weren't looking at 100 at the number of stories here. I'm concerned I've always been concerned with how blueprint Denver suddenly had this community center and growth area right here in this little node of of of north Denver. And and what I'm now concerned about is in your comments, you talked about GMU three being this sort of gluttony of townhouses, which I will remind you, up until this year, townhouses were not an allowed thing in GMU three. Legally, they were built under false use of apartment forms. So what it's concerning to me is that your map shows that as being high medium to the east of this parcel. Is that correct? I believe that is correct. This was produced by our gas administration team. And that is if you go to the next slide or the previous one, whichever is your context, that is General Urban. So is what you're saying. Because what I was worried about was eight story, right? So this massive development getting approved in through this putty and this putty then essentially paving the way for something much more dense or much more massive in scale than what is existing on the remaining portions of the PUD and going for eight stories along Lowell. And what does that context what does all this speak to that land to the east because it it has historically been single family and now it's GMU three development. But that content being that is allowing. So I just want to be clear in. The in the. Well, I'm going to put this in the form of a question. So what is the what is the building general building height that is allowable in a high, medium residential area in a general urban context? I can't speak to that off the top of my head, but I'm happy to look it up here in a moment. Okay. You do that because I'm reading it says buildings generally up to eight storeys in height. And so why I'm concerned about this and this is this is that conversation that we should have had a month ago is, you know, are we what are we setting this area for? Right. Because this is an area that what we heard tonight was a lot about displacement and gentrification and that this is a solution. But there are still residual, affordable, modest homes there. Would you allow GM you eat in that area, given that it's supported by plan documents. Seeing that that is not an application before us or a staff has done analysis, I can't speak to what we would or would not allow on site adjacent. So then back to the previous question about traffic. One of those concerns is health, safety, and one of our criteria is health, safety and welfare. I mean, well, welfare I would constitute traffic and ride away concerns under that umbrella of health, safety and welfare. And when given the range of uses that are allowed here, they have different impacts. Would you agree or not? Or are they all the same? Can you clarify by what you mean of impacts. Different impacts on the right of way? If you're stating that new development has impacts to the right of way, then I think that is a fair statement to make. Yes. But is there a difference between the scale of mean because this could be a one story. Structure. Or it could be a mix of structures to the degree that has been articulated thus far. Would those be the same impact or would they be different impacts? Likely the different developments or scenarios will have different development impacts which will be evaluated at time of site development plan. So what you're asking for this body to do is seed that responsibility of making the determination of health, safety and welfare to staff after the fact. Or are we to sort of imagine the worst case scenario as we go through? I don't think it's asking you to imagine the worst case scenario. Health, safety and welfare looks at the planet as a whole and our city as a whole. And I think it's important to note that blueprint Denver is a land use and transportation plan, and that was done very intentionally, meaning that land use decisions are made in conjunction with transportation infrastructure and improvements. And so I don't think that the city staff and our community would have designated this site as a community center if there wasn't adequate transportation infrastructure either existing or planned for the area. The reason why I'm asking all these questions, though, is, I'll be honest, I looked at District one in the Blueprint Denver issue. This is not District one. This is District three. And I did not see an area I was not cognizant that we had an area that had been so rapidly gentrified as that area of West Sloan's Lake and had gone from single family duplex and triplex into in small apartments, into massive amounts of dense townhouses, single family townhouses, but with with under the under the guise of GMU three with now mapped density into the eight story range. And so now that is something that I am now trying to comprehend, is what is now an appropriate community center for that level of urban residential that we have just mapped to this area because there are still available parcels in that area, are there not? I can't speak to what is considered an available parcel. Are there single are there things that are under built even to give you three standards given the market conditions? Let's take a look at the existing land use form. So, yes, if in that area, yes, there are single family home uses as of the point of this dataset. So what we have is a history of assemblages in this area where we get massive development to, you know, and now we're getting essentially new contexts that supports something else that is completely different than the current level of development in that area. And so I who's thinking about what is an appropriate community center, because what we're trying to do is solve a, you know, this this project professes to solve an affordable housing project because we lost 750 affordable units in this neighborhood, you know. But by adding density that may not serve the actual proposed blueprint, Denver density that is that is mapped for the area to the east. So I'm just I'm really perplexed on how this our plans that we've laid out, how this is consistent with the current plan. But I guess I'll have to figure that out because I'm sorry, you know, because it seems to work now, but it doesn't seem to work with our 20 year vision. And so either we've over mapped the areas to the east that have already just been partially gentrified to, you know, to to a point that they're not recognizable . And and this is a fine solution or actually it's not an adequate solution given what we're what we've been mapping and proposing. So I don't know how to put that in the form of a question. I'm sorry. I'll go ahead and move on. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions for the development team. Can you speak to the difference in and quality of construction and finish between the market rate units and the affordable units? Well, in the excuse me, in the for sale units, they'll be exactly the same. I've built three IJo containing projects and the units, whether it's affordable for sale or market rate for sale, they're exactly the same. Quartz, countertops, gas. Cooktops. The difference between the the condo tower and the multifamily will still have things like quartz countertops built for durability. There'll be certain differences, though the units will generally be somewhat smaller. I would imagine that it would be an electric cooktop rather than a potentially gas cooktop in the in the mark of a project. The the windows, the fence, tration, the. The exterior is meant to describe a great deal of quality. So the same materials on the exterior of the building we would expect to apply. Okay. Remind me how many parking spaces you said will be on site? Approximately 400. Okay. So are they assigned to the units or is it an additional fee? That's kind of TBD at the moment. I would imagine if we're going to actually put into place this day night sharing and make it effective, it would be an open pool. So as opposed to one spot assigned to one specific person. It would be it's an open pool. Okay. So I guess what I'm thinking is mainly for the affordable units. It would be first come, first serve, rather than you pay an extra 60 bucks or 100 bucks a month and you get a parking space. I think that's fair. Yes. Okay. But you're not sure yet, so. Yeah. Okay. Why is on the affordability of the rental units? And why is it only 30 years? Because where we're heading now is a city where off into 40 years and more. And a at a point, the expense and revenue lines touch incomes and therefore rents increase historically at somewhere around 1.8% annually. And expenses are increasing by somewhere around 3% annually, somewhere around the 33rd 34th year, with a typical expense per unit and an A today's rent per unit. Those lines will cross. So at a point, it becomes infeasible to make operating expenses and debt service. So that's why in the wisdom of the the ancients in in 1982, when Bob Dole introduced Section 42 of the low income housing tax credit, it was not a perpetual or longer, I believe, that it was not a perpetual or longer restriction period. So the federal period is 15 years. Jaffa adds. Adds to that. And so this commitment is for 30 years beyond that. Okay. And I guess. Laura. We're moving past those numbers. Could you just address that real quickly? Laura brzezinski. I'm the director of Housing Policy and Programs for Denver Economic Development and Opportunity. Ditto. So this project does have an existing income restriction on it that is for 30 years for some affordable rental units. The proposed development agreement will go above and beyond what is required, but that 30 years does match the existing restrictions, and there are no city subsidies being contemplated for this affordable housing agreement. So 30 years is what we reached as a negotiation for this particular project for the rental. But I will note that the Affordable for Sale has a 99 year restriction. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. And just just to add, that's off, Laura. Thank you. Go back to your seat. I just want to be clear on the multi bedroom units by my count for sale. We have eight total, two and three bedroom units and for rent ten. Am I on? Did I miss something? Hmm. If my recollection of the development agreement is right, you're correct that we have a minimum of eight for the for sale. Affordable six two bedrooms and two three bedrooms on the affordable side. It's broken down further by I levels. Okay. So we have seven three bedroom units at 40%. Ami. Thank you. We also have we have 13, 60% AMI two bedrooms and we have two 50% AMI two bedrooms. But those are minimums. Right. And we may well exceed those. Well, I would applaud that if you did. And one thing I wanted to add in, when when council recently passed a blueprint and the comp plan and the Parks game plan, we had it in the same paragraph and all three plans that kind of codified our commitment to reducing our impact on climate change. And I want to read I'll just read you part of that paragraph. As we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis. That commitment must be our overarching guide. So that tells me we have declared the responsibility of the development community to assist in mitigating or eliminating our impact on climate change. So I'll be asking in the future every development that comes through. So if you could just talk what your project, what your approach is in that area? Well, first of all, it is not just noble goal, but a necessary goal. I believe I'm correct in saying that Zocalo has build more LEED new construction projects than any other developer in the in the state. So we're we're keenly focused when we look at energy use. Thousands of British thermal units per foot per year, which is a great yardstick of electric use and gas use. The urban urban environment apartment buildings, according to EPA standards, range somewhere between 35 and more, typically 50 cb2 per square foot per year. Single family home would be probably half more of that. So 70 to 80 cb2 per foot per year. Fortunately, we've been able to monitor energy use at some of our projects over our River Clay project, for instance, was able to get down to 15 cb2 per square foot per year. So a significant reduction by by over 60% from EPA standards. So some of the projects that we've been able to achieve have inherently reduced energy consumption. But it doesn't matter if it's a really energy efficient project that's off in in the the greenbelt somewhere outside of the metro area and outside where there's transit. So where our buildings location are selected is absolutely critical. So this is exactly the type of location and the type of sustainable development that we would want where there is access to transit, jobs, affordability, retail and schools all close by. Not that nobody's going to get in a car. We know that they will, but we give them. And with Mike chooses help we give people a. A greater and greater opportunity to get out of their car, to live in a building that is inherently more sustainable by using less energy in a location where they don't need to be in their car, which is also a significant, obviously, use of fossil fuels. And you talked a bit about transit demand management plan. But we have not established it yet. This is one of the good neighbor agreements that we will that we would like to be working with with the neighborhood. But it is a commitment in our first and Broadway project, also 100% affordable at in the Baker neighborhood. Nobody required us to have a a transportation management plan. But we volunteered that with to the councilman's office, as well as to the Baker and West Wash Park neighbors, so that we actually can, over time, track it. So we have a two year engagement with, in that case, transportation solutions. And Stewart Anderson, to to help us determine whether in that case, our transportation demand management was effective and not just do it in with the expectation, but do it over time. So we Zocalo has a history of doing that and we want to do it with Mike Hughes as well. And the neighborhood and lasting. Mr. President, if this zoning were to pass and made this maybe four and a lease, I think you're back there somewhere. Is there anything in your agreement that requires neighborhood consultation or approval as as individual site plans move forward? I don't believe that there would be a requirement, but that is Zocalo is practice just as is emblematic at first and Broadway in the Baker neighborhood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. On a lease, according to the application, the area that would be reason to Pdg 21 only not counting the little finger to the south is about 5.2 acres. That is correct. Okay. And I want to make sure I understand what the proposal is for. Need my glasses. Sorry. F partial f where Beth Israel is. What is what is proposed for there? I think I heard that there's really nothing proposed there other than continuation of the the senior care facilities. Yeah. So in terms of what the PD allows, it allows for all the uses contained within the CM eight zone district as well as hospital and emergency access uses. That's what is allowed per zoning. However, the applicant will probably reinforce. The point that I'm going to make here is that no further changes are anticipated to the hospital and it is anticipated to be a continued use on the site, which is why the Puti caps at at its existing height. Okay. But it caps it at 110 feet. It's not 110 feet now. It's not exactly that, but it's what we generally use as a height for eight stories in the zoning code. So it's consistent with that. Okay. Because it says I think it says eight storeys and 110 feet. Correct. Okay. There's a little portion of the building that's eight storeys in the back. It's not at the street front. It's six storeys, I believe, isn't it? Okay. Mr. Zakaria, Mr. Featherstone, do you control that property or is that separate? We don't. That's so we're creating an entitlement for a parcel that is not under your control. That's correct. Okay. So I guess I'm probably answered this question. That was all to lead up to this at our next meeting, which will be in two weeks because we don't meet next week, we are going to have a public hearing and a vote on a changing the process for what's now a general development plan. We're going to go to a large development review. And when you come in for site plan review, it would be if it were more than five acres, it would come under that. But it sounds like when you come in, you're going to come in for slightly less than five acres. Is that is that correct? Just as a point of clarification. The hospital building is owned by the same landowner who controls everything north of 16th. Okay. So the big square, as opposed to the little sliver, and that is who our partner is on this project. It's owned by a different landowner. Is that little left that goes off to the south. Okay, so it doesn't own the property. We do not own it. It is our partner who owns the property. Yes. But when you come in for where the site plan, will it be for the whole thing, including where Beth Israel has. The 5.2 acres is everything north of 16th. So the big square. Now in our next meeting in two weeks, if we approve this new process, the requirement as I read it, read it and in our land use committee would require you to have 10% open space. But what I've heard is that there's the plaza at 17th and Newton. And what would happen under this new maybe this is a question for on a lease. What would happen under the new LDR process? When we examine a development that is more than five acres because we're reducing a threshold from 10 to 5 and I believe it's requirements 10% open space. So five acres is one of the thresholds, but there's other elements that are considered in terms of what will be required to go through the LDR process. So it's hard to say that this would definitely go through the LDR process. It would certainly be flagged for consideration and review. But I don't want to speak too much to that process and I'm not an expert. We can explore that at the meeting in two weeks time. It's my impression out of the committee was that it that you would be required to provide 10% open space and if there's a nuance to that, that or an exception, I'd be interested to learn that. Okay. One thing I just will add is there's different checkpoints in which an LDR might be required. One of those is rezoning, but another one is site development plan. So if they do come in for a site development plan, the LDR process could be triggered at that point at which open space and other infrastructure requirements could be considered . So I don't want to say that it will be, but it could be. Okay. I just want to make sure that Zocalo was aware of that, that this parallel track was going on. Can you let me ask, I guess, Mr. Zucker or Mr. Patterson, why did so many people come up here tonight and say that they've just heard about that? When my friend Larry Ambrose said that he's been talking to you all for almost three years, how why were there people in the neighborhood is still didn't hear about this until they got the mailed notices. And I don't know if Larry can address that as well, but I'm just curious. It just seems a large a high level of unawareness in the neighborhood for something that's been under discussion at the R.A. level for almost three years. We as a developer, we we trust that we hope that we're getting our message out when we. When we look on the city website and determine which RINO's are representative in certain cases, we didn't reach out directly to two individual neighbors. We didn't go door to door. As in you're not expected to. I understand those are pretty active. And Larry looks like he's anxious to to address that. But you've got to come up from. There were a large number of people that were involved in negotiating this over a long period of time. But the final plan didn't come out until about a year ago. Okay. It was taken to all of our groups at that time. The West Colfax Association of Neighbors formed a working group, issued a letter to Mr. Zucker. He didn't answer that letter for about ten months. And when the application was so, we didn't know that this actually was going on for almost a year. All right. When the application was filed, that's when everybody. Knew that that's what the social notification and the mailing. List went away for a while. Okay. Thank you. And one last question for Mr. Zucker, Mr. Featherstone. Why 16 stories? Why is 16 stories necessary? Could this be. Could the massing be arranged differently so that we didn't? I know that at Colfax and I think Quitman, there's a 17 story building has been there for ever since I've been in Denver, you know, 40 years almost. But that's that's pretty far away. And the lake house, I think, is 12 stories. Is it necessary to have something this high that is right there on the park and in the midst of of, you know, a lower density neighborhood. To achieve the level of affordability and the depth of affordability that we would like to be able to deliver. Mm hmm. The 16 stories is the the financial engine that allows for it. Okay. So I'm looking at what I think is based on your renderings. And it seems, you know, just to a layman, that you could pull down a couple of stories and spread out the wedding cake, if you will, instead of having a three story or a five story platform and then six stories in the middle. I don't know if that would go over any better in the neighborhood, but you could bring down, it seems to me you could bring down the 16 stories. I'm trying to understand that. We I think what we all responded to in discussions over two years and 20 meetings with Reno was that meeting the street had three stories so that it felt as if it were correct other and so which I think was done really effectively at City Park South with those two towers, two stories and 30 stars, 30 stories you don't really see, feel the density or I'm sorry, you really don't feel the height because they're wrapped with these elegant looking three storey townhomes on three sides. And in that case, as well, there's a there's an affordable project the mercy housing did immediately adjacent and to the south. So I think the goal that we had was if we were able to to sculpt the height in the center of this full city block, it becomes much more transparent to the resident, to the pedestrian. Okay. Would you be open to reexamining the massing and the height going forward? Well, the goal is for project that's 50% affordable and 50% market rate, probably actually a little bit more affordable than market rate. That's that's our goal. That is how we've engineered the project. We've looked at different different concepts. Obviously, the if the for profit is going to be subsidizing the affordable project, then the units of higher up are going to be able to draw more to create greater sales value. So we've not we I don't think that we'd be successful. We have looked at dropping down to 14 stories. We've looked at dropping down to 12 stories. So do you do the yeah. With the through our pro forma and it was not able to support the affordable. All right. I was actually on roofing. I have one more question from Liz in the LDR. Changes that we're making in two weeks are they're going to be asked to make in two weeks. Is it also isn't it also the case that if it goes through that ADR process, that there will be public engagement, pretty robust public engagement. The LDR process does require public engagement to occur on the forefront. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. I think Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. David, I have a couple of questions for you. The first one is about the good neighbor agreement. Was there is there an intention to file a covenant on the property to ensure that if you sell the land or the owner sells, that those obligations or those commitments would be followed through with. To answer that question, that was part of the discussion on what was most appropriate to put in the developer. An agreement with the city, which does have covenants supporting it. So the affordable housing and the multi-use multimodal path in in the middle of the site do have covenants or easements. The rest of the Good Neighbor Agreement, it was determined over the course of our application that that wasn't really the right avenue to put that into the development agreement with the city, instead the good neighbor agreement. So there to answer your question specifically, there will not be any specific covenants that go along with it, but many of these are commitments that really only Zocalo as the developer could make, and a lot of them go along with development of the project, like our commitment to union labor and to local hiring. Those would be things that burn off when the project is built. So I guess I just want to ask, are you all going to be the ones actually building the project? Yes, we are our own general contractors. Okay. And will you own the rental in the partnership? And a tax credit investor is in the ownership group as well. That's to make the financing work. To answer your question, yes. Okay. The single family block to the south for those units currently vacant. Or there are people living in those single family homes. I believe there are people living in most of them. I can't say all of them. Okay. So what's the timing and what's the plan for addressing the displacement of the families that are in those units? Well, actually, nothing about our plan changes the status quo for that leg that comes off down to the south. In fact, what the our proposed party does is it changes those from a non-conforming use to conforming use. Today, all that could be built on that site is a parking garage under the existing pad. So instead by putting in you t you see. So there is no intention to do any development on that. Correct. Correct. That is that is owned by the separate landowner now, not by our group. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Let me move on with a couple of others. The somebody already talked about the traffic and the need for the traffic study. I would assume part of that will recommend that there's a need for, you know, some other traffic calming measures. I walk that lake every day. I know what the traffic patterns are in the area. So I would imagine those would be some things that come out of the process and the city will through through the development review process, absolutely address some of those additional improvements. I wanted to ask Laura about the affordability. And maybe first, you can answer this on the 99 year that's just on the for sale. Correct. Correct. Okay. And then on the rental, the amount of time frame the affordability is attached to as at just 30 years. So if you can just clarify that, that would be helpful. Yes. The rental will be affordable for 30 years or more. Okay. And is there a reason that it's just 30 years? I mean, I heard the question asked earlier and heard your response, but we were asked to adopt something that addressed the 60 year affordability obligation. But that's where we have city money into a project. So I guess that presumes that this is all just publicly financed. I don't think that includes any preclusion on low income tax credits. Right. Can you just clarify that? Sure. So I believe the team is anticipating to use low income housing tax credits, which is a sustainable rental. State financial to net of local government financial. It's a federal tool. But we're administered by the state. Yeah. Correct. We are not utilizing any city subsidies for this. And that's where the 60 year affordability period. Okay. All right. I think that answers all my questions. I did have the concern about the displacement of folks that are on that one block. I know Dr. Arena ignores here in the audience and has been, you know, ensuring that as we have big projects happening all across the city, the issue of displacement and gentrification is folded into the conversation. What I'm not sure of is how we're utilizing our tool now that several of our departments across the city have gone through looking at the issue of race and equity and what that means to development and big projects that the city is doing, or if it's just solely applicable to city development projects. I don't know if that's something that anybody here can address either from the administration or the planning department. I will generally speak to guidance and Blueprint Denver as it brings forth new equity concepts that weren't previously included in comp plan and blueprint. Denver. And it does talk about when to apply those equity concepts, and it talks about large redevelopment sites, but it's not further defined. So that's something that CPD is actively working to define and to understand when we should explicitly be using those different equity concepts as a part of our analysis. And then it also states that anything that as a city initiated legislative rezoning should consider those as well. So in regards to Blueprint Denver, that's what we're doing to move those elements forward in close collaboration with NEST. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. President. I heard a lot of concern for residents. Who might live in this affordable housing tonight. And so I wanted to ask some follow up questions. First for Laura, if you wouldn't mind. Ordinarily, developments in Denver are bound to pay a linkage fee. In this case, they're going to build instead. Are there some rules that control access to amenities and the size of units and the welfare of the residents? In our current rules. Yes. So our linkage fee rules require that affordable units are reasonably distributed among other residential units within a development and should not be concentrated to any one specific area. That's when there's integration between market rate and rental units. Residents of the affordable units have to have full access to the same amenities that the market rate units would otherwise be able to access. The exterior design of the affordable units has to be indistinguishable from other units within the development and the interior design of the affordable units has to be functionally equivalent to that of the market rate units. And I think David has already addressed that. The market rate units will be exactly the same as you go to. This claim about corridors where some people get access to some amenities and others to others in the in the building where there is a mix of market and for sale, would that be allowed under our rules? That descriptor really has nothing to do with this project. The units would have to be distributed and they would have to have the same access as all the market rate residents. Thank you very much. My second question, I guess is for the development team. There was a claim about there being no access to community space for residents in the affordable building. Will there be any communal space lounge or any any space for the community for serving? You know, for folks to interact other than, you know, their units. There's a courtyard within the affordable project. There will be purely a guest since the building is is not yet really programed. But in all of our projects we have a relatively substantial amount of community space. So purely a guess. I would imagine that there's probably close to 10,000 square feet of space that is used for community gathering, for bike repair or for work spaces. So despite the fact that it looks as if it's a white box on the on the plan, it would be like all of the rest of our Zocalo projects. And we try to be to create habitable spaces not just in the dwelling spaces, but in the communal spaces as well. And another claim I heard tonight is that there will be no services for residents. So I guess I want to ask you, have you built rental at these AGMs before and what is your approach to property management? Will you self-managed? Do you have a manager? Do they have experience with these income level families? That's a great question. We would presume to self-manage and to bring in partners where we need it. When I was on the State Housing Board, one of my favorite programs was rapid housing for for formerly homeless school kids and their families. And the the Scholastic Records and the Income's scholastic records of the kids and the and the incomes of the parents were dramatic improvement in those programs. There was always wraparound services by a nonprofit family tree, for instance, was was one that worked in Jeffco. So we would presume to work with a partner. So are you committed to including input from those who, you know, serve the populations in the communities that you hope to live in, this building from this neighborhood in your planning for those services? We would. That's one of the continuing dialogs. I think that the neighborhood generally accepted some of these concepts. So those, for instance, the seven three bedroom units that are for formerly homeless school kids and families. I think there was general interest in that in the neighborhood and we would explore that further with with both neighbors as well as service providers, as well as the future residents of those units. Great. Thank you. I have one last question for on a lease, which is I realize might be slightly putting you on the spot, but one of the questions in the criteria is uniformity of zone district. And we heard questions about whether there is precedent or whether it's appropriate to have tall buildings near parks. And so I was curious whether or not you have any comments on the uniformity of zone districts in terms of proximity. The applicant has described, you know, a set of tall buildings near City Park. I'm thinking about others, but did you do any analysis? So the criteria, a uniformity of district application is not actually speaking to neighborhood context and uniform. Form building form standards. It's actually saying are we applying zoned districts uniformly throughout the city and being consistent in that? So it's uniform with the application of the pooled criteria, which is built off of CM X eight, which is an alignment and and uniform. So that criteria is less about whether or not tall buildings or short buildings or why buildings are long buildings are appropriate in this area, but rather how the beauty is administered and applied uniformly. Let me ask the question a different way then. Perhaps not. That's not the appropriate criteria. But in terms of maybe thinking about the equity requirements in the plans, right. So are we creating this neighborhood differently than other neighborhoods with regional parks in terms of, you know, the proximity of dense buildings near them, for example, or for example , you know, are we is there some some some precedent for that? I guess I'm trying to get at this question about whether we're treating this neighborhood differently or whether there are other regional parks that have similarities. I don't believe that we're treating this neighborhood any differently or, you know, acknowledging the neighborhood plan, as well as the citywide plans and ensuring that the zoning is in alignment with those. So should say, Capitol Hill. I live right across from the the vacant Whole Foods. Should they come in with a rezoning application to do an affordable housing agreement? They would be reviewed for the same exact criteria of Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan, but not West Colfax. One last question. Aside from a strict zoning density bonus, is there general plan support in the current plan or in blueprint for the idea that more zoning might be appropriate where affordability is higher? That general concept something that the plans reference. That general concept is not only referenced once or twice, but I think is a key backbone to many of the strategies and both comprehensive plan as well as Blueprint. Denver. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman the. Real quick question? Anneliese, could you Anneliese, could you put up that slide again that we had there? Had the properties with all the letters on it. Yeah. Mr. Whetstone, let me ask you a question. Featherstone. Yes, I've heard. Just want to make sure. I just want to make sure I understand it real clear. Now, the portions of this slide, the F, e, f in and E that's existing, that's the medical facility. That's a parking garage you're going to be sharing parking spaces with, right? Yes. F was intended to encapsulate the existing and even though it's part of the whole PPD, you're not going to be developing that p that half a block is just the block where the has A, B, C and D, right? E will be the freestanding parking structure that allows us to park all of our parking needs off site. But F is really what's supposed to encapsulate the existing building on the site, which we don't intend to change. So we will be a brand new parking garage. It will be a new parking garage. Correct. That you're going to build? Yes. Not an existing one. Not existing today. And so then the comparison of the square footage then is is really all that list of square footage that we talked about in the handout, I guess with the parking garage included, since that's going to be part of your project with the comparison that we've been focused on is between usable square footage. I just want to talk about what you're going to develop and the General Hospital maximum square footage is the only thing it'll be eliminated. Right. I'm sorry, because you're not going to f of their f of there. That's what you're not going to be developing. That's correct. Okay. So if you take that out, then you're down less square footage and the comparison of what you're going to build on there, especially that half block, the scale and mass, that's what everybody's been reflecting about tonight, is how much bigger that is than than what. And the additional parking that we are putting in to accommodate all of our uses is what adds some more visual density to the site. But the usable density remains. I just want to make sure I understand apples to apples. Yes. It's not the you can use the existing hospital square footage in a comparison of what you're going to be building. Okay. That's yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman to Councilman Espinosa. Okay. So, David, a couple of different people mentioned that the affordable housing will be built first. I'm trying to figure that out in the in the financing that you just mentioned, how do you use your engine? If it's going to be scaled, it is going to be built well after the fact. We will be borrowing, presumably until the payoff comes from the from the condo project. And okay, the linkage. So this is more a question for the city attorney. I know we have the build in, Lou, but how is the linkage not you know, how is that not a city subsidy if if they're essentially able to avoid the linkage fee because that would be a revenue that would otherwise come to the city if they were to pay it. Adam Hernandez, assistant city attorney. So they are providing more units than what would be required on the residential side. As for a build alternative number and any nonresidential development on the property would. Still be subject to the linkage. Fee. Okay. Is it the intent of this? You know, they're going to provide a considerable amount more than what would be required is the intent, because it's all one owner is the intent that this affordable housing also covers the affordability requirements for any redevelopment of F area f. No, that's not the intent. So is that clear that if the hospital's ever redeveloped, it will be subject to a linkage fee or affordable housing requirements? I think is what Adam just said. If there is commercial development on the site and we will have some retail even on our proposal on the west side of Mead, that that is subject to the linkage. So we've understood from the beginning that if it's a commercial development in Area F, it will be subject to the linkage fee. Yes. Okay. Can we make sure that that's codified in the developer agreement since the city already is responsible for that? It already is in the agreement. Okay. The question Councilman Flynn brought up about the LDR, this is something that I brought up when I was reviewing that, which is that large developments vary based on location. You know, what may be a what? Five Acres is a substantially large site in Sloan's Lake compared to, say, Green Valley Ranch, you know, or Penn Station. And so not all neighborhoods, particularly to native. You know, it sounds like is one of those neighborhoods that has never had a neighborhood plan. Not this part, obviously, but the totality of things like has never had as a statistical neighbor, has never had a neighborhood plan yet is consistently graded as not needing plans, in part because of the way it's established and it's existing. So, you know, how will staff how is staff intending to review make that judgment call on whether a five acre LDR requirement is is. And, you know, that's sort of arbitrary given the nature of the sort of development, the scale of development here versus other parts of the city. Is this a one size fits all or were you is there something here that you would recognize that this is, in fact, a large development? So the LDR review process is criteria to determine whether or not it should be subject to that process that goes beyond the five acre minimum. So the additional criteria will be used by staff to evaluate that. I can't speak to. Well, to date I haven't heard anything about granularity establishment. I mean, the length of the established neighborhood, you know, the size of existing roadways in exist, you know, the existing infrastructure fabric. So that those are all points that I'm happy to share with my colleagues who are working on that project. Okay. Thank you. And then did you were you able to verify what the height, the number of stories were recommended for the general urban hot medium to high residential or. So I actually do believe that that map that was included in the presentation and staff report might be an error. And when I look at the original blueprint PDF that was adopted, when I'm reviewing that, it comes up as residential, low, medium, which is the lowest residential intensity for the general urban context, which talks about a variety of building forms, up to three stories in height. But that's something that I would certainly like to follow up with you on to ensure that our maps are in alignment with our adopted plans. Yeah, and that's crucial because that's why I asked that question, because it did seem to be in error. But that really that really, really creates a stressor for me if staff is telling me that it's high, medium or medium high and what that means for that neighborhood. And now I don't know. And thoroughly not clear. And then why? T u c not esa in the tail? Because, you know, one of my concerns and I brought this up at Ludi is this is an area that has experienced unprecedented gentrification and displacement of minority families. And those are modest homes. There's five single family units, one, two duplex and one tri or quad. And so we have now blanketed all seven parcels with two unit development rights. Right now in this area, a two unit development, you know, those houses will have their their their days numbered. If we put to unit rezoning, I mean, zone mean development entitlement on those. And so that contributes to the same gentrification and displacement problems that have been mentioned time and time again. Why not go askew and then allow the nonconforming number of units allow those parcels that have multiple units, build multiple units in the Urban House for the way we have in other areas. Why would we create deliberately the situation where this would now get, you know, be vulnerable to demolition and replacement? Because that seems more inconsistent with our sustainability statement that Paul Cashman just mentioned earlier. So the subject property IDs that you're referencing that are located south of 16th Avenue have had a history of R2 zoning. So even prior to the city number eight, they were zoned R two, which generally was converted through the update of the Denver zoning code into two unit zoning. If we then jump over to are going the wrong way. My apologies. Our existing zoning map, as you can see to the left, there's a significant portion of the area that is zoned UTC and that was done in 2010 as part of the citywide rezoning and found to be the best comparable zoned district to the existing entitlement of R2 on the ground. I think it's also important to note that while this is being proposed to be rezoning to you two, you see there is nothing stopping the property from being re zoned in the future to a single unit use or to a higher intensity use. But that is application zoned district requested today and we have evaluated it and found it to be consistent with the applicable review criteria. I think that the strategies that you were talking about of retaining existing homes and deed restricting them and allowing multiple units is not a tool that we have currently as a standard zoned district, and that would require an additional pivot and something that we would be potentially isolating out these specific properties as opposed to taking a more holistic approach and building that into the base of our zoning code. You know, the holistic approach was taken in 2010 and if you go to the GM, you three area over there, you see how how comprehensive that idea was in creating a very walkable, livable and easy to. You know, drive neighborhoods. I mean, I think we've heard it time and time again today. So thank you. Are you all done? Council announcement. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 401 is closed. We're going to move on to comments. I will ask council members that the hour is late and we got a lot of people sitting in these seats for a long time. Thank you for sticking with us. So if you could keep your comments concise and attempt to stay under the 5 minutes per person, that would be much appreciated. Are there any comments from members of Council on this issue? Councilman Ortega. I would like to just thank Chad. Mellanox, I think, is how we pronounce his name. I don't know if he's still here for his comments in just acknowledging the impact that some of the development that has occurred in this neighborhood and particularly along that 17th Avenue corridor has had in creating the effect of gentrification and displacement to so many of the families that are in the schools that you talked about earlier. And I would just strongly encourage that. As you, you know, assuming the votes are here tonight, that as you move forward and look to identify who will be in those affordable units, that the schools be part of the outreach, because that's where the families are that are being so much affected by what is happening already in the neighborhood. I just want to say, I think the the discussion tonight has been very healthy and is important to ensure that the issues have been addressed in terms of, you know, ensuring that we've got the affordability on the project, the the agreement that you have. I know there isn't somebody that it's been signed with to ensure the enforcement and the applicability of it. But David, I know you've done many projects around the city, and I know when you say you're going to do something, you follow through with that. And I think that's important to not just this neighborhood, but any of the neighborhoods that you have worked within. The fact that this is along a TOD corridor is important for folks that will be encouraged to use other other modes of transportation. But overall, I know the scale is concerning for the community, but in general, I think this is going to be a good project that really does ensure that we have more affordable housing in this city. We cannot build housing fast enough in the city. It takes time to get your low income tax credits. I'm on the board of a nonprofit housing group and I know how long it takes. And oftentimes it's multiple cycles before you actually get your project funded. And so I think the commitment that's being made that is beyond above and beyond what the normal, you know, ask is shows, I think, a genuine commitment on your part to help. Be part of the solution. And if we had more developers committing to be part of the solution and addressing the affordability of our housing crisis, then we'd we wouldn't see so many families having to leave our city. And again, you know, this is happening where folks are having to move so far away. And in some cases, they're still trying to keep their kids in the same school and move back and forth, which exacerbates the traffic on the roads. But in general, I think this is a great project and would just encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. This is a bizarre night if you've been here for the whole night. I started on a comment, you know, on a rezoning, and I talked about three projects around Jefferson Park. David actually developed two of those projects and that was then weird or because so this is part of the weirdness is then we did the River Drive Landmark District and two of those projects, one he did and one he didn't do bring that landmark district. And now here we are talking about a David Zucker rezoning. So it's just interesting how my past life as just a community activist and Jefferson Park is sort of touched into reached into the work that I'm doing, all the work that I'm doing tonight. Anyway, we had this price point of housing in this neighborhood, but policies prioritizing density over quality of life have displaced these affordable those affordable units and distressed the roadways that you heard about and the park infrastructure, because we didn't do any improvements on the roads or the sidewalks or the park. Well, we increased the number of housing units and these displaced all of the embodied energy in and affordable, modest homes that were destroyed in the process. Apparently, the solution to those near-sighted regulations is now subsidizing the replacement of lost units with even more and higher value market. Higher value market rate units that still do nothing to improve the quality of life or further and further stress that right away that we just were talking about and the park infrastructure which isn't getting any more subsidy I getting any more improvement just because and then adds the pressure only adds pressure to those remaining modest homes that are still in the neighborhood to turn into the next market rate project because it's used by right without any requirement other than the meager leak and fee linkage fee which only perpetuates the problem. Three years of Denver. Right. And still there is no comprehensive strategy to what how to address what is only justification of more predatory development capitalizing on what was so the that is me talking in general about what I heard tonight you know, which is, you know, the Yimby crowd saying, no, this density is the solution. Well, density created the problem. You know, this was a affordable neighborhood. This was a viable place for generations. People never had a hard time finding housing in Salt Lake. You heard about the empty units. But somehow, you know, gentrifying it and making it so everyone. Neal, no one can can live there unless they have an income that can afford a $400,000 minimum mortgage. Is is an improvement. There has to be a way to do both. To have it both ways. You need to solve your problems in situ. You don't export them to other surrounding municipalities. Our policies are failing. And half. For ten years, we've we didn't get this right before and we're still not getting it right now. That said, this is how I propose that we do that. Right? Customized zoning, zoning that addresses as many of those things as we possibly can. Rather than create use by rights situations that don't dictate outcomes. So you have now a customized zoning that stair steps this development down and transitions it into the neighborhood in ways that Amex eight which would have been allowed and been justifiable and all the all the plans that we have would have had zero lot line and 810 stories at the property line. And that would have been perfectly fine. And we have seen that fail time and time again. So the idea that we would do customized zoning so that we get outcomes and we negotiate development agreements so that we get affordability, we start to hit some of those checkboxes. I agree that there is still huge question marks on right of way improvement and impact of parks, but I'm actually sort of not worried about it. Right, because the park self-regulate. It has been a regional, regional park for as long as we know. Right. It used to have an amusement park on the island. It used to have water ski shows. It used to be I used to have another amusement park on the other side. People will go there until they aren't comfortable or happy going there. They will love it to death. Councilman Espinosa, you have been gone for over 5 minutes. I'll just ask you to begin to wrap up, if you can. Sorry. That said, I have concerns about the mass and scale, particularly on the east side, where we're sort of blindly saying that the age story wall is going to take care of itself. No. We're granting this entitlement for the entire party. As written, CMC's eight. And I have those questions about that to you. So I am firmly in the I don't know where I'm going with this right now. I'm sorry. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I will try and talk fast. Thank you, everyone, for being here so late. We appreciate your passion for your neighborhood. And on, please. Thank you for the great staff report. You are always so knowledgeable and answer our questions so authoritatively. I am going to support this because it meets the criteria and it's consistent with adopted plans. Couple of comments. I am a Denver native and I remember in 1991, Denver's population was at a very low point. Since then, our population has grown by 2 million people, our metro area population by 2 million people. So we want to talk about why traffic is bad. That is why traffic is bad. And most of us still drive cars. As many of us mentioned and many of us drive our cars by ourselves. I drove my car here tonight by himself, which means we're all part of that problem with all those new people. We are having a housing crisis and I think we all agree that we need thousands of units here in Denver, especially affordable units. Neighbors, I hear your concerns. And as is typical in a rezoning like this, traffic is the number one concern. But traffic is not part of the criteria, nor is traffic a vision element in the comp plan or blueprint. Denver But affordable housing is a vision element, and the only housing strategy we have to combat traffic and minimize the impacts on infrastructure and climate in a time of rapid population growth is density. And to quote Daniel Gonzales, if he's still here, density is not a dirty word. I thought that was pretty funny. But sprawl is a dirty word because sprawl increases traffic, it burdens our infrastructure and it is much worse for the climate. And so. Adam Nesteroff If you're still here, I could have just read what he said because he is so eloquent in this argument. But all of those people who live up the Boulder Turnpike and they drive their cars into Denver today, they're polluting, they're worsening our air quality. They're using infrastructure. We have to build roads that is bad for our city, that is bad for the whole metro area. Density is the way that Denver can achieve its housing needs, increasing supply in a responsible way so that our fellow residents can be housed. This project isn't using any city funds, which frees up our city funds for other affordable housing developers. So where we will get more housing. Additionally, this project is supported by affordable housing advocates. Many were here tonight. We also received letters and emails from some. So I vote for this project. In addition to it, meeting the criteria is a vote for affordable housing for our city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. Listening to everyone who spoke tonight, thank you for for staying and being here and the development team and CPD folks as well. The one comment that struck me the most was by Evan Darby, the 20 year old student who said, we can't wait, we need more housing, not parking spaces. And, you know, traffic parking changes to a neighborhood are very important considerations. But looking at all five of the review criteria that we have to make our decisions on this project, in my opinion, has met them and exceeded some of them for for this neighborhood, but then also for the folks that are struggling to stay in this neighborhood. And, you know, a lot of people throughout the word gentrification. But I didn't hear the concern of the neighbors necessarily around how we are going to address keeping, especially folks who, you know, are categorized at a certain am I level or communities of color. How we're going to actually keep them within our city and in all of our neighborhoods, not just specific neighborhoods. I didn't hear any pushback on we need this affordable housing because we need to support the people in our neighborhood who are at risk of involuntary displacement. I heard a lot of we don't want this because of traffic and parking limitations and the hype, but this project hit so many checkmarks for me. We're going to mitigate the negative effects of climate change through sustainability, energy conservation, improving air quality. A little more than 50% of the units are going to be affordable with no city subsidy. Thank you for doing that, because that allows those funds to go to other neighborhoods who maybe don't have a developer who is willing or can make a deal. Pencil This area is three miles from downtown with a focus on multi mobility and transit. That's what we need to do as a city. Successful families and individuals have a right to stable housing. That includes individuals at the 40, 50 and 60% AMI level. It's going to have resources. It's going to have amenities. It's a high opportunity community that folks would love to be part of. Right next to a regional park. And so with that, President Clark, I will wrap up and I will be happy to support this rezoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Neal. Thank you. And this is a real difficult topic. I tell you, this is the crux of the matter that all our neighborhoods are facing. You know, here's density. Here's a need for affordable housing. What are we going to do to provide additional housing for residents in the future? It's a big, big concern. And we got all the best players sit in the room. I couldn't think of a better, affordable housing or developer than David Zucker sitting here helping us trying to solve this affordable housing issue. I can't think of a better guy and Larry Ambrose and all the resources here trying to defend their neighborhoods as well, making sure that they grow and develop and maintain neighborhood character. I hear neighborhood character often in all the planning processes we do, and I understand that this financial arrangement is so advantageous, is the right way to do it. So the city then to put money in to it. So David's. Really doing. This totally the carrying the load on this project. So. So it's a real concern to neighborhoods. I've got several of my neighborhoods that are pursuing overlays now just because they're concerned about this over densification. So it's a big, big issue we've got to address. Maybe it's not an issue we need to address tonight, obviously, but it affects this decision tonight. So so I appreciate all of the people who've come and testified, all the research and information you presented. And it's going to be very interesting to see how we come up tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'll I'll start by saying, as I look at the the criteria where we're qualified to address, it appears to. Me this may meet that. But what I want to talk about is the reality of projects like this, because I have one exactly like this in my district, and it's easy to minimize the impact of of the traffic that that this will generate. Okay. I understand that density is a value. I agree with that. I certainly agree that affordable housing is a value. And this is, I think, an exceptional project to have 50% in the in the depths of 40 and 50% affordability as it has. But we can't, as a city, ignore our responsibility to deal with today, to deal with how do we keep traffic moving. And for the for the two years that my project has been in process, you know, I have continued to to lobby this tale with Denver Public Works that we can't just shrug our shoulders. We need to be creative. We need to stop talking about some day we're going to craft a more robust transit system in our community. We need it today. We don't need we don't need it, you know, 30 years from now, when when the whole whole system has has rearranged itself. So this is me saying, however, this turns out tonight that our our our public works department, you know, it's a big job. And I'm not pointing at them, but I am saying that's the department that is responsible for taking care of these issues and to start using more tools to calm our traffic and to move it better . And whether it's a shuttle or whether it's the the the agreements that Councilwoman Sussman has been fighting for for years with companies like Lift and Bridge, who was the first company I believe she talked to a few years ago. It's time now. You know, there's so much going on in this city that it's time now. And this is one of those things. So I just wanted to ring that bell one time. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I've been a strong advocate for affordability, as folks know, and for increasing our housing supply, and particularly projects that are close to transportation corridors, because the cost of transportation can be almost 30% of the expenses that a person of an area median income has. And of course, even more for somebody with an income of less than an area median income. So the idea of putting affordable housing in this sort of location when there is so much transportation available, actually does double duty for the audience with which it hopes to help. And the high cost of housing doesn't necessarily come around because of zoning. It comes around because of supply and demand and wage gaps and all the other things that go into it. Now, it might come about when you have lots of zoning for single family homes because they take up more space and they are more expensive, that that kind of zoning may have the effect of increasing the cost of housing. But in my in the literature, it's not generally dense zoning that is the major culprit to the high cost of housing. And I have been I've been looking a lot at the Ninth and Colorado Project because it, too, is a hospital and a school , although it was 26 acres and not as small as this. But it is interesting how when the when the project got more described and they did do the traffic studies, they found that when the hospital was there as this could be, it could be a hospital, the number of cars, trips a day were 30. Thousand a day, folks. Kind of forget about that when the University of Colorado was there. They have put in 1200 living units on that project and then an extra 112 affordable. I wish there were more and lots of retail all over that place. And the traffic studies show that it's going to produce 15,000 cars a day. It's going to be half the number. Of traffic. Cars than the hospital itself produced. And that's because it's also on a transportation corridor and has lots of options on Colorado Boulevard. I know that pretends to be a transportation corridor sometimes, but it's certainly on Colfax with that the kinds of amenities that this particular project will enjoy. So I am very pleased with the with what I've heard tonight about what this project is going to provide for affordable housing and for just general neighborhood interest and and amenities for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I was very interested to hear the remarks of council members Espinosa and Cashman, particularly Councilwoman Espinosa, regarding what we've been looking for, for at least for our term here, our first term. And that was more customized zoning, more prescriptive zoning. I know a lot of us have been well, some of us have been pretty displeased with granting entitlements for things that we had no clue what was going to happen afterward. And and I found myself persuaded by Councilman Espinosa's remarks, actually. But I do have to note that where we have added density, we've done the opposite of what we think our goal is. We've created unaffordability, the slums like area. Just looking here, in fact, looking at Larry's house, do you know what that's worth? You know what you could get for that now? It's crazy. It's totally unaffordable. It's not because it's a single family house. It's because the land you're sitting on has been made more valuable. Too valuable to keep your house on. Because of the density we've added. The density we've added in five points has made that now I think it's 70% white households. So adding density has not really created affordability. It's done the opposite. I represent a district that in which most of my residents, most of my families in my single family homes, which is about 60% of my housing units, are families of color, and they're still in an affordable situation. So I am concerned about the addition of density, but I am persuaded by the fact that this is a customized zone and drawn to such an extent that and with assuming we will adopt the LDR process in two weeks, that it will result in a robust engagement with with the community and try to refine the project. So I will vote in favor of this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Kennedy. Thanks, Mr. President. Many of my comments were covered, but I felt like I just wanted to kind of respond because I feel like we're we're having exactly the debate we should have after hearing the testimony we heard. So thank you to those who came and also the same debate we should be having after the adoption of these plans and after a rigorous election cycle where this growth question was such a topic. And so I mentioned earlier in my comments about the historic designation that I think that it's about pairing things right. So for me, it's about both doing historic preservation in areas that meet those criteria and preserving the quality and character of historic buildings while also adding density on parking lots. Right? So I've mentioned River Mile is on a parking lot and I forget what the last rezoning we did that was on a parking lot, the Mile High Stadium, right where there was a plan adoption. But I, you know, adding density on parking lots is the right place to do it. And then you preserve, you know, historic areas for those places. And then that's my humble formula for trying to navigate this stuff. But I want to just say a word about this question of density densities like fire. Fire can warm your. House. Or it can burn it down. It's all about how you use it in densities, neither good nor evil. It's a tool. And we frankly had no accountability in place for density to ensure equity. Right. So that's the missing piece. So when you look at the generation of growth that happened, you know, maybe in the you know, ten years ago, we had maybe one plan. You know, there was maybe one or three. Dimensions of affordable housing and blueprint, and that was it. And, you know, community groups like Mine Hunger has an in organize like hack over two or three development areas that we had the capacity to, you know, advocate for equity. Meanwhile, 70% of the development going around was happening with zero accountability, particularly on the rental side, because we didn't have any policy in place on the rental side , we only had it on the for sale side. So I, in my opinion, is not the density that has caused a lack of affordability. And, you know, we can talk about economists for a long time, but it's the shortage of supply that causes, you know, a crunch for housing on the middle income side. Right. So when you don't have enough supply, you have a crunch. That's a lack of density or lack of quantity of units that affects middle income folks. And it's a lack of policy that limited our ability to ensure moderate and low income families could live there. Because the only way you the market will never deliver units that cost more to build than you can charge the market will never do that. Density will never do that unless you have a policy to go with it. In this case, you know, the linkage fee, this was not just out of the goodness of our developer's heart. There was a policy in place where they would have spent a lot of money and they're doing more than they would have and they're maybe getting more density than they would have. And all of that is part of having a pairing of density with accountability. Now, where we need to go next is one step further. And I appreciate Councilwoman Gilmore's comments that affordability alone does not prevent displacement. So what is the affirmative marketing of the units? Right? Will we get our resident preference policy done before the end of the year? I sure hope so. Where is it that we go with others? With the tools where you do have a plan for what I call the ripples? Right. So if this location is the where the rock hits the water, then the question that neighbors raised about what are the ripples around it that's relevant and we need more tools for those ripples, too. And that's where, you know, we talk about land trust and we talk about, you know, other types of methods. So so we we've got this first little piece in place. We need to get a much you know, the next step in the large development review is getting the housing policy piece. I hope it looks a lot like what we did at River Mile, which is if you're doing a large development, you have to negotiate a plan with us and it can be a little different depending on which your community needs. But I think it's all about how we pair these three things together preservation of historic areas, growth on parking lots and major thoroughfares and transit stops and all the places the plans say. And then pairing that density with accountability and equity every time. Right. And that means higher negotiations for above and beyond just the linkage fee or the, you know, the standard requirement. So so I feel like this thing we've talked about tonight and the things my colleagues have said, if you add it up together, that is the formula . And it's not pretty and easy, but we will just have to keep pushing for those further ripples. And, you know, just to add to the record, I think the criteria were met tonight and I will be supporting this. I hope you continue conversation about how to get to the ripples and with the resident preference and talking about affirmative marketing and the other ways your units aren't just affordable but help to fight displacement thinks. Thank you councilwoman can each councilman Herndon. Thinks that it is almost 11:00 and my comments will be done before I hit 11. I promise. I want to echo Councilwoman, can you just comment because with density, if you you add density but it doesn't keep up with the supply. It's not going to is not going to help affordability. And so that has been our challenge for a very long time. And for us to sit here, I don't find it productive now to continue to place blame. I think it's time for us to find solutions. I think this criteria has been met because that's what were your judgment on? I think this proposed development is one of those solutions. And so but I understand the the concern from the community members. And I want you to know that I hear that and I wrote down each person's name and how they wrote, and I hear that. But for us to solve our challenges with growth, each of our communities needs to evolve. And so I think this is a great direction moving forward. And I believe that you have a partner who's willing to work with the neighbors to address those concerns as best as they can. And I we recognize we're not going to make everybody happy, but I believe that this is a solution we need to move forward with. And so this is why why I believe the criteria had been met. But I also think it's a good project moving forward. And Annaliese, I want to say thank you always for your professionalism, because at times you don't get it from these from the dias and that's unfortunate. So to the staff and to the people, thank you for that. And I'll be supporting that. And it's not quite a. LEMON Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilwoman. Herndon All right. I see no other comments. I will I will end. So you just have me left and then you're out of here. First of all, thank you for coming down here. Thank you for sharing your. Or opinion, your viewpoint for being part of the dialog and doing it in such a respectful way, even though it is an area that, you know, so many people in here are very passionate about, it affects you right where you live. So thank you for that. Thank you staff for all of the work on this, getting this to us. A couple just quick comments I wanted to point out and I think Councilman is really grabbed on to it, you know, in in a different way. But what Councilman Flynn was starting to talk about about density doesn't mean affordability. And look at a single family home neighborhood. I think there are there are bigger things. And Councilman, can you just touch a little bit on that at play? Because that's not true. Everywhere on the block that I grew up on that my parents will celebrate 50 years living in that home. This year they bought a house in what was a fairly affordable blue collar neighborhood for $10,500. That has seen no density increases. That still has very low density, single family zoning. And this year I didn't follow what they actually sold for. There were two single family homes on their block that sold for 2.1 and $2.3 million. And so that isn't that that I just want to caution, you know, that what may have happened in some of the single family home neighborhoods in Councilman Flynn's district, that's not in my district. I grew up in Councilman Cashman's district, but it is not necessarily the case unilaterally that in places where we haven't seen density, oh, we still have affordability. I think that we've seen a lot of that and I think there's a lot at play and I think this has been a really good discussion and look at what is at play and what are the tools that can come forward that can lead to a guarantee and a promise of affordability. As we look at grappling with all of these things, I also just want to reiterate what Councilman Cashman had spoke to during the questions part about this language that is in our are our big guiding documents about the environment. And while not specifically something that we have had much time to grapple with and deal with, I think it's so critical to really be familiar with this language. You know, as we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis. That commitment must be our overarching guide. And I will say, beyond the zoning piece, one of the things that I heard that concerns me is that we and I am not blaming you guys, I think it's all of us, whether we're developers or we're citizens, haven't done enough changing of our mindset on what it's really going to take to to live those words. And so talking about, hey, we're putting gas stoves in some units and electric and others because it's an amenity that it shouldn't be. It can't be. We are our planet is dying and it's going to die if we make choices on units that will last for at least 30 years. If we're building infrastructure that doesn't allow us as the grid gets cleaner and the grid gets moves towards renewable energy, if it's still all I have in my kitchen is a gas pipe that's still dirty energy. And how do we move away from thinking about what is the amenity set and how do we really that commitment must be our overarching guide. And so my challenge to you is not just in rezoning but in building to take this language with you and remember that this is part of the criteria upon which the zoning, if it is approved tonight, enables development. And looking beyond that to how do we make sure that we are building the infrastructure for electrification because we can get the grid to 70, 80, 90% renewable energy if we're still using gas to heat, if we're still using gas to cook, and if we're still using gas to drive, then our planet is literally still cooked. And so I would just take that as a challenge to anyone who's coming here and doing development, especially enabled by a rezoning under this, that I think that's part of your challenge that we can't measure tonight, but that the burden lays on you to remember that that commitment must be our overarching guide. That being said, I do think that the criteria have been met here today as articulated by a lot of my colleagues, and so I will be voting to support this. And again, thank you all for your passion and your commitment and for being here. And so with that councilmember, just a reminder, since committee planning and development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met, ten affirmative votes, instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of counsel are required to pass this bill this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 401. Black eye. Espinosa. I. When I. Gillmor. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Can eat. I knew. No. Ortega I. Assessment I. Madam Secretary, please close voting to announce the results. Somebody hasn't there, you know? We missing somebody? Very. Yeah. You have ten eyes, one name. Ten eyes. One day counsel go 401 has passed. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.