A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2650 Arkins Court, 3205 Denargo Street, 3280 Denargo Street, and 2700 Wewatta Way in Five Points. Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from R-MU-30 with waivers & conditions; I-A UO-2; I-B UO-2; and PUD 605 to C-MX-8 DO-7; C-MX-12 DO-7; C-MX-16 DO-7; C-MX-20 DO-7 (various zonings to urban center, mixed-use with overlays), located at 2650 Arkins Court, 3205 and 3280 Denargo Street, and 2700 Wewatta Way in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-2-21.
Pocket gov offers a wide variety. We have two public hearings tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one and your microphone. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yield of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Council Bill 83 on the floor for final passage? I move that council build 20 120083. You be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Secondly. It has been moved and I believe we got the second from Council member Herndon. The combined public hearing for Council Bill 83 and Council Bill 515 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items after the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Scott Robinson here. Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me, Mr.. Mm hmm. We can. Thank you, Madam President, and members of Council Scott Robinson with the planning and development. This is a request to rezone 2650 Perkins Court 3205 and 3280 Tanaka Street and 2700 Boulevard away from a new 30 with wages and conditions you owe to you owe to impurities. So 5 to 7 seam x 12 07x 16 07x 27. The property is located in Council District nine. In the Five Points neighborhood. It is in the international market area just northwest of where Broadway turns into Bright Boulevard and just southeast of the South Platte River. Properties of 13 acres. And the applicant is requesting a rezoning order to facilitate the development of the property. Here's you're going to see the zoning of the subject property. I'll get into that in the next slide. You can also see the surrounding zoning, which puts former Chapter 59 duties and other custom zoning, as well as some schematics eight, 12 and 16 and otherwise. Industrial zoning. So majority of the property is zoned art and certainly with wavers and conditions, which, as a former Chapter 59 zoning district that is primarily residential but was supporting commercial uses, allowed waivers and conditions to limit height on the property to 75 feet, required 12% of the property be set aside as open space and allowed zero foot setbacks. Duty 605, which applies to the first proportion of the property, has basically the same requirements as the AMI with waivers and conditions. However, a 220 foot tower is allowed on a portion of that 605 property, and then the remainder of the property is owned by A and B, which are industrial. Here you can see the existing land uses. The property is currently vacant, surrounded by a mixture of multi-unit, residential, industrial and commercial and mixed use. And here you can see photos of the property from around the site. This property went through the large development review process. The large development framework was approved in April of 2020 and amended in November of 2020. That leads to calls for amendments to the existing departments in order to market general development plan. But those amendments are waiting to be approved until it. If the this rezoning was approved. After following the zoning, the Government Review Committee will approve the changes to the General Development Plan. The amended GDP contemplates between 1014 hundred residential units and one between 1.20 5,000,001.5 million square feet of commercial space. But it maintains the requirement for 12% open space on the property. It also calls for updated design standards and guidelines for the existing generic market design standards and guidelines that apply to this property. Others have also been updated to reflect the changes to the proposed development pattern and also eliminate conflicts with the DOH seven design overlay, which will be included in the new zone districts and also improve the height transition to the river by requiring or limiting height along the river to 55 feet. And I'll get into that a. Little bit more. Later. Slides. Also, as part of the review process, the development agreement was negotiated. That development agreement covers a number of things, including construction, maintenance and funding responsibilities for public improvements, environmental standards and materials management standards for the moving of dirt and things like that. On the site vesting of property rights. A number of specific property rights in the zoning would be vested for a period of ten years under the development agreement that includes the transportation demand management plan and also a voluntary, affordable housing. That voluntary, affordable housing commitment would require 15% of any residential units built to be affordable for a period of 60 years. For the rental units, the four rent units that are built on site. Again, 15% of those units a up to a maximum of 80% AMI area median income was at least 25% of those at 60% AMI or below, with a guaranteed of at least 40 middle 40 units to be built at that time. On a specific parcel, there would be one parcel set aside for an affordable housing development. If for sale units are built, they would again be required to be 15% of those set aside as affordable for those up to 100%. Ami with that at least 30% of those up to 80% pay line the. The agreement also would require at least 30% of the affordable units to be two bedroom or larger. The proposed zone districts are a mix of mixed zone districts that's urban center neighborhood context, mixed use zoning eight stories which would allow 110 feet, maximum height , 12 storeys or 150 feet, 16 storeys, 200 feet and 20 stories tall and 50 feet. You can see the map on the right where those specific zone districts would be applied with the greatest height and density concentrated in the center, then stepping down as it gets closer to the edge of the development and gets closer to the river, stepping down to that extent on the river. Then again, the design standards and guidelines would further limit the height immediately adjacent to the river to 55 feet instead of 100 feet. And then the seven is the river north design overlay that includes additional requirements to ensure. Good urban design and don't form in this area. It would apply to this property as well. This rezoning application went to planning board on December 16th of 2020. I received a recommendation of approval by a 5 to 4 vote. The concerns from members of the planning board that voted against it. One was concerned about that height transition. And as I mentioned, the design standards and guidelines have been updated to address that. The other members had more general concerns about compatibility, but the impacts on the general safety and welfare that this type of development would for this rezoning would have and the impacts on things like affordability. This went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on February 2nd, and you have in your pocket four letters of support from registered neighborhood organizations. 34 other letters of support and two letters of opposition. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adaptive plans. There are four plans that apply to this property. The first plan is Comprehensive Plan 2040. As described in the staff report, staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with multiple strategies from Plan 2040, including the strategies from the strong and authentic neighborhoods vision element relating to high quality urban design and development in appropriate locations. In terms of equity, state funds, the proposed rezoning consistent with these three strategies from the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element relating to providing a variety of housing options at locations that are close to existing amenities. And in terms of climate stuff, I propose presenting consistent with these strategies from the environmentally resilient vision element, again relating to development and mixed use development at appropriate locations. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. The future neighborhood context designation for the subject property is Urban Center, which calls for high intensity residential and commercial development, a substantial mix of uses and a high quality street activation and connectivity, which would be consistent with the urban center context of the proposed zoning and the requirements of the proposed TMX seven zoning. The future of place designation is high residential, which calls for a high mix of residential and commercial uses throughout in this area. Buildings are the tallest in the context and includes highlight coverage and shows that acts in a very urban, walkable environment, again, consistent with the proposed Sea Annex zoning in the Southern Design Overlay. Arkin's court and an Argo Street are designated mixed use collective streets, which call for a mix of uses and pedestrian oriented buildings. Consistent with the proposed zoning and many other streets in the area, are locals providing that connection from the larger streets to the actual development and the arterials, like Broadway and Park Avenue? The city's growth strategy designates this under the high and high median residential areas in downtown, an urban center context intended to accommodate 5% of new jobs and 15% of new housing by 2040. Hoover in Denver also includes a number of other strategies and recommendations, including views that relate to applying design overlays in appropriate locations , which together the proposed design is intended to be applied here and also rezoning properties out of former Chapter 59 into the design the Denver zoning code, which this new zoning would do. Also because this property is a larger rezoning. So it went through our Equity Analysis Fund or Blueprint Denver, where we looked at the three equity concepts outlined in the plan. First is access to opportunity, which is looking at how well this area has access to quality of life and that it is both in quality education. This area scored lower on the health metrics and also has less access to high capacity transit. In order to address those. The development is including additional parks and open space to improve health, including access to recreational manatees, including connections to the multi-use pass along the river, creating a walkable environment and improving health and safety. Also improving access to affordable housing so that a wide range of people will be able to access those incentives. And while it's not close to. High frequency transit. Under the definition, it does have access to existing bus routes and the transportation demand management plan. We do have an agreement that includes additional strategies for improving access to transit. The second equity concept is vulnerability to involuntary displacement. Looking at the potential for residents and businesses to be involuntarily displaced, this area has some vulnerability to displacement, scoring high on the percentage of renters in the area. In order to address this. As described earlier, there is an affordable housing commitment which covers both for rent and for sale development on the property. But also the applicant has committed to local marketing for those affordable units to help the people that already live in the area, to stay in the area and not be displaced. The third equity concept is housing and jobs, diversity, looking at a range of housing and employment options in all neighborhoods in terms of housing diversity. This area scores lower in diversity because of the lack of diversity in size, rental or for sale units and lower cost units. So again, the affordable housing agreement that I described earlier will increase the number of affordable units down to 60% AMI, and also includes that requirement for larger units of two plus bedrooms and covers, both for rent and for sale housing. So would address those housing diversity issues. In terms of jobs, jobs, diversity. The jobs in this area are fairly similar to the job makeup in the city overall. And the proposed mixed use zoning would allow for commercial uses and jobs of a similar mix. So it would maintain that level of job diversity. And so if that staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the recommendations of Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the River North Plan from 2003, the future land values concept. For this property, it's residential mixed use, which calls for either residential mixed use for commercial mixed use zoning consistent with the proposed zoning calling for compact mixed use, pedestrian friendly developments. There's no specific guidance in the plan except for along the river. It calls for urban design guidelines to limit heights to 55 feet, which, as I described earlier, the amended urban design standards and guidelines would limit height along the river to 55 feet. Also calling for urban design that reinforces that district oriented and transit supportive character of the area which the proposed zoning D of seven design overlay would do. Let me first plan is housing an inclusive Denver which is the city's affordable housing plan. It lays out strategies for providing affordable housing in the city, including promoting development of new, affordable mixed income and mixed use rental housing, which this application would do again through the affordable housing agreement I described earlier. However, it's important to note that that affordable housing agreement is not necessary to meet. Plan consistency in this application, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the plans, even without the affordable housing agreement. It is just an additional voluntary agreement that the applicant has committed to. So staff finds the plan for the proposed rezoning consistent with adopted plans. And the first criterion. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff plans. The proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the proposed zoning districts. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare. City staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and requirements development that is walkable, compact and mixed use. Improving safety and health outcomes. Also, the affordability requirements would improve the welfare of the area and access to parks and recreation. Again, improving health and safety and welfare. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning justified by change for changing conditions. As described earlier, the majority of the site is zoned for a former Chapter 59 zone district. So rezoning into the rezoning code justifies rezoning of those parcels for the properties that are already in the Denver zoning code. The ivy portions, those the rezoning of those parcels is justified by changes in the neighborhood and newly adopted plans which call for this area transitioning from an industrial area into a higher density, mixed use commercial corridor. And that, as you can see, an area is well underway. So rezoning those properties out of industrial into mixed use and investors is justified by the changes in the area. And the last criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district, purpose and intent. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the urban center neighborhood context description any purpose and intent of the C annexed zone districts and the D of seven overlay. Over that staff finds all five criteria are met and recommends approval of the actor to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Scott, for your presentation. And tonight, counsel has received one written comment on Council Bill 83. There is one submitted comment in favor of the application and no submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 83 has been read by each member of Council, and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 30 individuals signed up to speak this evening and would like to remind folks that we also have another public hearing. And if you feel like you're repeating information or it's information that has already been said, we ask you to keep your comments shorter, if you would. And so we're going to go ahead and start with our first speaker. Is there a comfort confer? Go ahead, please, Sarah. And you're going to have to unmute yourself, Sarah. All right. Well, we're going to see if we can get. Sarah. Unmuted and her camera on. If not, well, it looks like she's connecting to her audio, so we'll give it a second. All right. We're going to go ahead and see if we can get Sarah. You into the queue here. There we go. There you go. Yep. Go ahead, please. Introduce yourself and. Tribe architects, and I'm here with the applicant team to answer any questions that come up. All right. Thanks, Sarah. Our next speaker this evening is Ann Bowers. Yes. Good evening. My name is Ann Bowers. I'm with the applicant team and. I'm here to answer questions on transportation. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Laura Newman. Hi. Can you see me and hear me? Yep. Go ahead, Laura. And thank you, Madam President, and members of council. My name is Mark Newman and with the local development team here to answer any question. And I'm joined alongside my colleagues, Sarah Copper and Sean Campbell. They'll also be available to answer questions. But I do just want to say that as a team, we're really enthused to be here with this evening and to share and discuss our development plans along this significant stretch of the South Platte River. We're very, very fortunate as a three generation family business to be able to commit and invest alongside our partners in North Denver and the city at large on this stretch of the South Platte for many, many years to come. This site is just a stone's throw away from our office, and it's close to our homes and we're excited to roll up our sleeves and get to work on creating a great place for all of Denver to enjoy. And we've had very, very informative conversations over the past nearly two years with various neighbors and organizations, both cities, planning department and agencies, to help plan for a site that will be a true community asset, we believe, for decades to come. So last thing I'll say is that our team at the city has done a really great job working hard and moving us through the LDR process and our amendment to the GDP development agreement. So hats off to them and again, happy to answer any questions along with my colleagues from colleagues throughout. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Laura. And our next speaker is Caitlin Quander. Good evening, Caitlyn Quander and available if there are questions, legal questions related to the development agreement. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Shawn Campbell. Hi. Good evening. Can you hear me? Go ahead. Thanks for having us. Again, I won't reiterate too much of what Laura said, but we are very excited to be have the opportunity to develop this piece of property along the South Platte River in our backyard. Our team at formative has developed several projects in the Five Points and and north side of Denver and specifically industry next door to this site years ago and where our offices are over here and many of us live here in the community. And over the last couple of years, as Laura said, our outreach and our discussion is with both our knows and neighbors and business alike have informed the final product. And we're very proud of what we're putting forth to you all here today. And we're happy to answer any questions or provide clarity on the details of our agreement and the proposals. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Sean. Our next speaker is Alfonso Espino. Yes. Hello? Can everybody hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Thank you for having me here. Thank you for having me. My name is Alfonso Espino. I live right down the street, essentially, and we're swans here. And I'm a resident of District nine. Obviously, I'm here to voice my opposition to the proposed reason. To me it's pretty clear that the CBD Fund Department has for some reason passed their own litmus test on what equity is and essentially has proposed and has been uplifting this message on behalf of the applicant that this site, the proposed development, is some semblance of equitable. I'd like to say that there has been no equity, close to zero equity proposed for the units at this site. It's basically nonexistent. It's a very small percentage. I believe the number is 15%. Just based on that alone, that is inequitable. That is not equity coming out of Blueprint Denver's words and striving for equity. It is not inclusionary. It is, if anything, discriminatory in the way that they approach their equity when you're only. Putting up 15% of your units to 80 and 60% army levels. That is discriminatory when it is an overwhelming amount of the units that will not be available to an overwhelming amount of people that currently and will in the future live in the city of Denver. We, the city and council members here love to use the argument that it is a supply and demand issue. You've had ten years to prove that correctly and you've had ten years where you have been proven wrong. It is not a simple supply and demand issue. The city and the city and the city council has refused to do anything about it and is giving up precious land in this city. For the sake of developing units that will most likely remain empty in its lifetime. Units that will only add to, I believe, the last time I checked, 50,000 luxury and market rate units that are currently sitting vacant in the city and you are discriminating against. Anybody but people who have defined as your community, the developers of the site, the applicants of CPD and this council. Typically not everybody, but a lot of these members have defined discriminate in the community as anybody but the poor and working class. And to me it is quite ridiculous for the economic colonizers to be speaking on equity on the behalf of those that you've chosen to admit in community. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is cable doc. Hi. Good. Good evening, members. My name is Taylor Belden. Let me see. It looks like you might have froze. You might need to turn your camera so we can hear your audio. Actually to Alba Wedgeworth, where she and I helped to remove the railroad tracks on Walnut Street. At the time, I was the only retail business in the area, which was mainly occupied by industrial based businesses such as foundries, hardware suppliers and concrete providers. Much has changed since then, and I, for one, am a huge proponent of the change. The inflow of both residential and retail businesses has brought a vibrancy to the neighborhood that had previously been nonexistent. I welcome my new neighbors from developments such as Madeira and Camden Reno. I appreciate the economic stimulus that these new residents provide to long standing local businesses such as Erica Motorsports Ratio Brewing STEM Ciders and Chroma Coffee. Large scale product projects like Gennaro will only continue to enhance the district and allow businesses like mine to create jobs and generate tax dollars. I have seen the plans for Gennaro, and I'm impressed by the thoughtfulness and. Care. You're cutting out again. We're not able to hear you. You might have to turn your video off. Can you hear me? We get your comments cut out a bit. And so I would prefer so that we can get your full comments on the public record, if you wouldn't mind turning off your video. And sometimes the audio will work better then and if you want to go ahead and start over so that we can get your full comments into the public record. There you go. Go ahead and try again. Thank you. My name is Taobao. Doc and I have owned a business Erica Motorsports in the Rhino Arts District since 1999. In addition, I am a property owner and a founding member of the Rhino Business Improvement District. My history in the area dates back to when there were railroad tracks on Walnut Street, which I helped to remove with Albert Rudge. At the time, I was the only retail business in the area which was mainly occupied by industrial based businesses such as foundries, hardware suppliers and concrete providers. Much of that has changed since then, and I, for one, am a huge proponent of the change. The inflow of both residential and retail businesses has brought a vibrancy to the neighborhood that had previously been non-existent. I welcome my new neighbors from developments such as Madeira and Camden right now. I appreciate the economic stimulus that these new residents provide to my long standing local business neighbors, such as Ratio Brewing, Stan, Ciders and Crema Coffee . Large scale projects like Norco will only continue to enhance the district and allow businesses like mine to create jobs and generate tax dollars. I have seen the plans for New Nahco and I am impressed by their thoughtfulness and respect for the river. They will be taking a neglected parcel of land and creating a place that people can call home. The developer has also gone above and beyond the number of affordable units to be provided by previous developers, which was in the 8 to 10% range. And this developer has almost doubled that offering by providing 15%. Now more than ever, are city leaders such as yourselves need to be laser focused on economic recovery. You must recognize the importance of job and revenue creation. Projects like Norco will provide both. I urge City Council to approve the general market project. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Mattie Hughes. I. Can you hear. Me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Maddie. Hi. My name is Maddie Hughes, and I'm a resident of District ten. I have lived in Denver for over three, three years now. And I have to say, I am saddened and disappointed in the glacial pace that City Council has taken to work toward economic and racial justice in Denver. I am from Milwaukee, a city known for its extremely racist history of redlining and police brutality. And I came here thinking Denver was a more progressive city, but I was wrong. Colorado ranked sixth in the U.S. for police killings and fifth in the US in the rate of police killings of black people. You may not see the racial and class discrimination and the decisions you make on this board, but I am here to tell you in. First of all, housing is a human right. Humans require shelter, not just the ones who have it had the odds stacked against them from the start, but also the ones who are born into poverty or encountered hardships along the way that resulted in them experiencing homelessness. None of you have ever stated whether you agree with this basic truth, but most of you vote as if you don't. There are opportunities for you to stand up for the disadvantaged living in encampments. But you act against their interests. Further disenfranchize the working class of the city. To be clear, we are separate from the professional managerial class. We are essential workers. So when you approve rezonings for expensive developments that raise the cost of living and push out the area's original inhabitants, there is a term for this. It's called gentrification, and it's a form of institutional racism and economic discrimination. So even though you declare at the start of every meeting that in these times of social change, it is critical for you to have opportunities to hear us members of the public. I want to ask you what the point of that is if you consistently ignore this point when we bring it up. I also am not sure if you're aware but wanted to bring it to your attention that much of Denver was run by the KKK. Not so long ago. There is an art. That you marry. If you could keep your comments to the rezoning that we're talking about, it's related. Thanks. Much of gender was run by the KKK. Not so long ago. There is an article currently on the Denver Library website about this entitled When the KKK Ruled Colorado, Colorado not so long ago, Klansmen ran the government and most businesses in Colorado. I bring this up because as white people, not indigenous, this land, then as an elected body, you have a responsibility to learn our violent history and to reverse it with policies guided by morality and care, with knowledge. At the start at the start of all your meetings that our government has historically excluded and erased indigenous peoples, although we live on Cheyenne in Arapaho Lands. But these developments that you continually approve further push out any indigenous people who do not want to. That's the time we have a lot of. After our next speaker, we have Douglas Jackson. Madam President, members of council. My name is Douglas Jackson. My day job. I run an organization called Project Cure. We do medical relief all over the world. I've been a resident of Rhino and Lotus since 2010. Our friend Brian Vogt at. Botanic Gardens would tell us that there are four microclimates around the world called Steppes that's in the Gobi Desert, the south of South Africa. That's in Patagonia, Argentina, and here in Denver. And what that means is that water is probably our most scarce and most valuable natural resource. When I was a little kid, we lived down by what's now the melting pot down in Littleton. There wasn't even guardrails along Santa Fe, and my dad would drive this little dune buggy down and my brother and I would play in the Platte River. We'd watch the ducks and the geese. But the farther you got north along the Platte River, the scarier it got. It was industrial, it was dirty. It was not a great place to be. But I watched the city council and what you have done along areas like Riverfront Park, and it is a revitalization to this city. That's incredible. We walk through the park, we ride through the park, Riverfront Park, at least 2 to 3 times a week. And I have seen the diversity. I've seen a healthy environment. I've seen an economically and environmentally sound location because of what we've done. We know that in communities like in Portland and Austin, the Detroit International Riverwalk in and in El Paso, in San Antonio, that when people address community needs and they embrace the natural resources like the river. We've watched those communities thrive. Here's a bit of trivia that's kind of interesting. This year, two and a half million people will visit the Alamo in San Antonio. This year, 5 million people, twice as many, will visit the Office of the Riverfront Walk in San Antonio. This is an opportunity for us to continue to develop Denver's greatest natural resource, the Platte River and the tributaries. It's 13 acres that we get to rebuild. We get to create the vibrancy. We get to put the german-polish what we have in this town. And I encourage the city council not to miss this opportunity. All right. Thank you, Douglas. Our next speaker this evening is Nolan Bingle. Good evening. My name is No. Let me go on with the global response to coalition organizing for Health and Housing Justice. Tonight, we're opposing this reason, mostly because it doesn't address displacement. At this point, we're talking about a lot of luxury market rate units and then quite the disparity of of some units that potentially support homeless youth . So what that. Looks like and feels like is the large disparity on that campus, also with. The. Men's shelter. Right, right next to it. So it's disappointing that we're talking about 20 stories, 15, three, 12 story rezoning, and we can't get any diversity within those units. We have to put or we'll do this very specialized population to the side of the project. Yet within those buildings we don't have any income diversity. 80% in my is just about market rate. Let's be real to the neighborhood. Median income in Globeville is 40%. So we're not and that's not even that's not talking about the folks that are being displaced, which may their arms are even lower than that. So it's disappointing that we're talking about this large scale of entitlements and aren't addressing displacement at all in an area that has faced displacement five point has faced an extreme amount of displacement and globally response. You are right in the midst. With. Tons of private development surrounding two areas with tons of units. The neighbors are at their health and safety and well-being is impacted every day by the risk of displacement. Nine out of ten neighbors are at risk of displacement. If the only response they were stable, we would be having very different conversation right now. But unfortunately, they're not. And and that's. Another thing we want to talk about. Is just the general of the equity equity process. Or the lack of it. We have a really long way to go. We that that again, the analysis of vulnerability to displacement, even looking at what the neighborhood arm is, it isn't looking. At in in globally. It isn't looking at change over time. So there's just a lot of things that how can we move at results that address displacement if we can't even start with a good analysis of vulnerability to displacement. So again, as disappointed by that, we just there's no actual outcomes aligned with preventive. I think the potential project that. 30. To 50 am, I. Promise you is, you know, has. Has some potential. But having it separate and not addressing displacement at all is frustrating. And we need to think about new points of action like new reason criteria, thinking through putting site planning with rezoning so that we can actually come to some outcomes so that we can create new tools like an equity scorecard. Etc., etc.. Thank you. Thank you, Nola. Our next speaker this evening is Jeff Shoemaker. Good evening. Can everybody hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Thank you. I'm Jeff Shoemaker. I run the Greenway Foundation. For the last 47 years, we've been dedicated to revitalizing rivers and reconnect with communities and members of council. It's so good to see you. It's been way too long. And this is an example of my father's vision. Who founded the Greenway Foundation that one day the best place to live, work and play in Denver would be along the South Platte River. The team you have before you informative hour, long time, long time engaged members of the Rhino community. And this is their latest example of that, including the fact that they are committed to 15% of their residential portion of their development to affordable housing. The project before you engages our river, it engages then faces our river. It improves our river through water quality, through accessibility, through recreation, through people gathering and the opportunity to bring our award winning environmental education programs free to the banks of the river in this very area. And what pleases me the most selfishly, is the first project out of the gate, if this project is approved, is to take back a section of the river that needs help. And by the way, the we are at the Greenway Foundation already engaged in engaging in a vision to take the river from 38 to Globeville Landing Park to City of Quinn, Avoca Park X blocks upstream and find and create that next vision to make the river even better. I strongly urge you to support this proposal. These are good people. They care, they're engaged. They have a record, they have a proven record. And I encourage you to vote yes and let the record show, Madam Chairman, that Jeff Shoemaker didn't need to be muted at 3 minutes. Thank you all very, very much. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jeff. Our next speaker this evening is Tess Storti. I cancel on you for allowing me to speak tonight? I. My name is Tess Sturdy. I live in District nine. I heard someone characterize this area as a neglected plot of land, and I just wanted to. To make sure that that was accurately portrayed. Because the truth is that this wasn't neglected. There were actually hundreds of people who lived on this plot for years and were traumatically displaced to make room for this development. The thing that is most concerning to me is that we've been talking about we talk about developments outside of the scope of the environmental impact that all of these developments are having on our lives and our lungs and our life expectancy. The Environmental Protection Agency deems the area along I-70 and Vasquez a Superfund site. Did you know that there's a landfill that's leaking into the Platte River due to government due to government ineptness. At best, at worst, an effort to poison the marginalized people that live in the area. Areas of concern include the continuing problem of leachate flowing into the South Platte River from the toxic landfill under the recently constructed Globeville land landing outfall and the problems connected to the toxic landfill under the Denver Coliseum and parking lot. These are right by this development. And so I would like to know what kind of environmental impact has been, has been developed or looked at for all of these new developments, this one included. This is a huge development. It doesn't address the housing displacement that's going to occur, quote unquote. Affordable housing by this council, when used is not really affordable. That it's it's a it is just a guise for doing what's right. And it's not, you know, but it's a it's a guise for gentrification and displacement and the playground that this city has become for developers. And it doesn't matter where the developers are from. When we are, we are purporting that this that they are doing this out of the kindness of their heart, you know, that they don't have to provide this. When we all spoke months ago, we were here till 1 a.m., almost speaking about how when we were begging not to approve the development of this site, people spoke about like councilman never spoke about the the criteria and how we everyone spoke about how the criteria was outdated and needed to be changed. And yet here tonight, we're still using the same criteria that we all of you, you know, noted was not sufficient. And so I'm just curious how in the months leading up to this very meeting why the criteria hasn't been updated to include the environmental impact and to include the true housing displacement that will occur. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Simon Cullen. Again. Everyone hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Right. Hi. My name's Simon Cohen. I live at 2680, Blake Street Unit 14 in the Curtis Park, five points in Rondo neighborhood. I've lived in this exact spot for seven years now before I was renting a city gate apartment at 28th. And Brian from 2011 to 2014, city gate is one block right across the street from the proposed Indigo Market Project. My current home is just across the train tracks here on Blake Street. As a homeowner in the district, I like to say that what our neighborhood needs most are retail services and additional parks. This is true are on the northwest side of the tracks on Brighton Boulevard, near my old apartment at City Gate. There are barely any restaurants and a walking distance of the proposed development in nowhere to get basic goods and services like groceries, pharmaceuticals, dry cleaning and the like is primarily due to the lack of density in the neighborhood. We need more people. More residents and more apartments, more daytime populations in office buildings. We cannot count how many restaurants and stores shut down during COVID and same shutdown, even once retail could reopen at limiting capacity. The store owners say this is because they cannot get enough customers to make reopening profitable. The bottom line, they need more customers both day and night. This proposed development at Diamond Market will add over 1000 residents and several office buildings, which will provide customers with potential retailers to come to the neighborhood and allow the residents to have options to buy basic needs and goods without having to drive to adjacent areas. When I moved into my townhouse in July of 2014. There's hardly anything here. Lake Street was still a one way, and there are a couple of bars open, a very good restaurant in the immediate and even in the broader area. Since then, I've seen my neighborhood flourish with restaurants, shops, gyms, etc., mainly due to the influx of new residents in the neighborhood. There's also increased safety in the neighborhood for all the new residents and families moving in. In addition, I'm the proud owner of a beautiful golden interior puppy named Oscar. He's very energetic and loves nothing more than to be outside. Our neighborhood needs more parks. Both dog parks for our pets can run off leash and park share with people, kids, pedestrians and cyclists. I believe the Riverfront Park, the De Niro Markets Development will be a centerpiece of the community and help those from around the neighborhood and the city gather and hopefully build new friendships and relationships. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is David Hagan. Good evening, folks. Thank you for taking my call tonight. Is there any way I can share my screen for just a moment? Unfortunately not. They were. No, there's not a way. No. I was going to share, but I'd like to talk about tonight. Is the discrepancy in life or that you are is a 13 year difference in number of years, you're expected to live in certain parts of Denver versus other parts of Denver. I'm curious as to how we're going to rent luxury apartments to folks when they find out that the life expectancy is 13 years less in that neighborhood than it is in Los Park or Cherry Creek. And then how are we going to get folks to rent those apartments when Suncor is polluting the area at a rate much higher than they've been permitted to do? And some say something like 7 million people die every year to fly in particular due to exposure to fine particulate matter, which is exactly what Suncor is doing. They're spreading a bunch of fine particulate matter in that area at much heavier amounts than they are in other areas. We also have let's see what else. Oh yeah. So there's 20,405 or so empty apartments, right. Currently in Denver. I thought it was a little bit higher than that. There's 27,000 on on the way. I'm not sure if these apartments are on the way as well as those on top of the 27,000. But that puts it at 50,000 apartments. What is going to make folks want to rent these luxury apartments versus other luxury apartments? To me, it sounds like we already have some hard things in against what's going to make you want to rent there. I'm going to die younger or I'm going to get exposure to fine particulate matter, and I don't think I want to live there. That's a conversation for a day tomorrow. We need to be having a conversation about why are we doing this to the folks that already live in that area. But I'm very much opposed to this happening, putting a separate building for the minimal amount of affordable housing that most of it isn't even affordable housing is not okay, and they should be mixed together and it should be a much higher rate. Right now, we don't have an apartment problem. We don't have a housing problem. We have an affordability problem. We have the housing to has all of the folks that are in Denver right now. We just are charging way too much and we continue to raise the rents. It affects everybody. It doesn't just affect the folks at the bottom. It affects all of us on the way down. Rents across the board continue to rise and people that do not continue to make more money without getting an entry salary. How are we expected to pay our rent? And that goes up and down. And then the folks that can't pay their rent are forced to move outside of the city. So are the people that are cleaning your houses and cleaning the buildings and the people that are working in the retail stores. How far out of Denver are they supposed to live before that? They can afford to their housing and who's going to pay for them to get bused back into Denver to do the work that nobody that the affluent folks don't want to do? These are questions that we need to be asking ourselves. Everybody deserves a place to live. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Our next speaker this evening is Stephan Bencic. Hi. My name's Steve Munchak. I live in District six in University Park, so I just want to say so the seniors that kind of came from a lot of cold, hard facts. Housing First, there is not nearly enough supply here to meet demand as we're seeing. And I will give the councils some credit here. This is something we're starting to see a lot more awareness of. So I'm optimistic about that. But we still do have a ways to go. And the second one is that the city's rezoning process is rather Byzantine and makes building that much needed supply a lot harder than it should. Yes. And the fact that we're sitting in a hearing about whether or not somebody should be allowed to build affordable housing on an empty lot already zoned for residential use, it's kind of evidence of that. I wholeheartedly support this request for rezoning because like I mentioned before, we really, really need it. You can see it here and all the exploding rents and the property prices throughout the city, which has become a really hot topic. Pretty much everyone before me. Has mentioned and the rampant. Displacement and homelessness that come out of this. This deal, which meets all the legal requirements possible, is a win win for everyone involved will benefit the people of the city by driving down housing prices and the cost of living, which I agree with. A lot of people who spoke before me is probably the biggest issue facing the city today. Well, there's so much to be done on the housing front. I strongly urge you to vote yes for this. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Blakey. Hello. My name is Katie Blakey and I live in District ten. First off, Mr. Robinson from CPD said that there is some vulnerability, displacement in this area because of the high percentage of renters. Then one wanted to say that over 318 people have already been displaced directly because of this rezoning. On November 30th, 300 people were displaced for this rezoning to take place, with Denver police attacking unhoused people and their advocates pepper balls and pepper spray. The initial rezoning meeting for this property took place just 16 days later. 18 more people were displaced from this area this year on April 27. Also wanted to express my frustration with how opaque the process around this rezoning has been. During the initial LUDIE committee meeting. There were considerable issues with the rezoning, including the environmental and health impact of such a large development so close to the Platte River. It was an incredibly contentious discussion, but the rezoning got pushed out of Looney anyway. The required public hearing for this was supposed to be on March 15th, but was delayed until today, May 24th without explanation. One of your colleagues recently said during a webinar on council processes that the content of a bill would not materially change between when it was passed out of the committee and when it comes before the full council. Why then the two and a half month delay on the public hearing for this bill? How can the public know or trust that you all CPD and the developer have put in the necessary work to address the issues brought up during that leading committee meeting? Because of the lack of transparency around this bill, I ask that you send it back to committee so that the public can have a greater input and visibility on this rezoning, which could which could significantly impact the health of one of our most vital waterways and better address solutions for the potential displaced. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is David Pardo. Hi. Thank you, city council for making time to hear from all of us today. My name is David Carto. I serve on the board of Highland United Neighbors. I live in District ten, not representing honey tonight. Just representing my own interests. Which are those of a renter. I heard plenty of comments before earlier tonight about how there are all of these vacant luxury apartments, how these will remain vacant when they're built, all of those sorts of things. So I went in and I looked at the four buildings that are next to this property. So you have the Waterford, the Imlay Building, City Gate, and a building by MRA. Not sure what they stand for anywhere between all of them. They have roughly 1000 units. 67 of those are available. Which sounds like it's roughly 6.7%, but that's actually incorrect. Only seven of them are available for move in today. The rest are available for move in in the future because a current resident is leaving for any. They bought a house. They're getting married. They're moving in with their significant other. They're changing cities for whatever reason. They need a bigger place. Only seven out of 1000 units in that immediate area are actually available today, are sitting vacant right now. We have a housing crisis in the city. We don't have enough units and for any number of reasons. This is where we can build apartments. We can't seem to build them in Hilltop. We can't build them in the country club neighborhood. We can't build them in bulk. So instead, the children of those relatively fancy neighborhoods end up being able to afford rent in places like what is about to be built. And it would be great if instead of 15% affordable, it was 30% affordable or even 50% for it. If that would pencil out, it would be great if the City Council would take up affordability. Now that we've changed some of the laws at the state level and mandate for levels of affordability and projects. We can't really do that yet. So in the interim, it makes sense to build more housing. It makes sense to build more housing in a place where the active vacancy rate is under 1%. It makes sense to build it in a place that is currently an open field that I drive past every single day on my way to the office. And yeah, I absolutely support this rezoning and the things that will come of it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris. Yesterday evening. A member of the council cannot be hurt. Go ahead, Jesse. Yes. My name is personal representative for Denver. Homeless, formerly homeless out loud, black star, symbol for self, the best of the best of times, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. The front line black male and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am against this rezoning tonight. This is not affordable. Affordable for all who can afford this. The rich white yuppie boy yuppies that are moving to the city. This is not going to help the poor residents of this area. Five points at least. Denver. This is ethnic cleansing at its finest in a council tax office tonight you let us know that what you said. So I am definitely against this really go back to the drawing board and actually great affordable housing. People can actually afford this who honestly can afford people that are moving from other states such as California. And New York. With higher economy, higher income. That's the only people that can afford this. The natives, the people that have been here for generations cannot afford. Live at this property. This is not affordable. No matter how many times you say that there's a affordability clause and there's affordability within this. Only 50% of the units are actually affordable. It's not affordable. Out of 1200 units, only 50% are actually going to be affordable. That is an atrocity. So we're watching a devastated council, so we'll be taking note of your vote. If you pass this, we know exactly where you stand. Oh, honestly, it meets all the criteria. Start you say. So there's really nothing I can set up on a tank or vote on this. But we would preferably, as they actually demand you to not vote yes on this rezoning tonight. We don't need no more unintended consequences from all this development that is going on in the moral high income states where you have to have moral high income in order to survive. As the previous speakers have already stated. This area is full time and that is not the answer. Providing housing that people can actually afford to access this property could be something. That. Can actually accommodate those. Or at 3:30 a.m. across the board we get the developer wants to create housing that nobody can afford. So people from out of state are the city that are flying in left or right because their economies are tanking and they're coming here because it's actually affordable to them. But to us native people that have been here for generations, it's just not affordable to us. So we have no vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Swanson. Go ahead. All right. Hey, how's it going, everybody? My name is Stephanie Swanson, and I am in favor of the result. I live at 1750. We want us to shoot at the Colorado in one of the affordable units. I've lived in Denver for about eight years now. And over the course of eight years, I've seen prices go up and up in Denver. In about four years ago, I bought my first condo in Cap Hill and scooped up as much money as I could to buy my first condo as a 400 square foot condo in Cap Hill. It was a converted motel about three years ago from one of my clients. I do personal training, by the way. I think I mentioned that one of my clients here had mentioned the Colorado was being built, and I wanted to kind of get out of where I was living. And the Colorado never had a affordable program. About 10% of the units there were income restricted. And I thought, hey, why not? Maybe I can get out of where I live and move and move up, I guess. So I ended up winning the lottery program for one of the affordable units of the Colorado, and it changed my life a lot. Like my quality of life just skyrocketed, and especially during COVID, because our gym shut down and I had to kind of adapt. And thank goodness I was able to live up in Colorado close to all my clients because primarily I work with people downtown and it gave me the opportunity to still work and earn a living and a pretty get I mean, better living, living at the Colorado. It gave me more opportunities that I wouldn't have been able to have living in my prior spot. So with the Navajo Market, I feel like it's going to open up a lot of new opportunities for people like myself. And I'm really impressed with the there they have 15%, I guess of their units are going to be affordable versus my 10% in my building. And I believe that we have 34 units in the Colorado and the Navajo. It's 150 acres. So that's a lot of potential for people to help improve their lives and their circumstance. And so I'm certainly in favor of what this has done for my life, and I'm really excited for what it can do for other people's lives as well. So that's kind of my stance on this whole rezoning. So thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jordan Blond. Hi. Has Jordan Black? I'm an urban designer in the city of Denver. I grew up in Denver, lived here for the majority of my life. And I'm also the former chair of the Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee. And I want to speak in favor of this rezoning, especially from a public realm and mobility standpoint. I think that when you have the opportunity to use development to achieve better mobility, better access, better connectivity, and a better set of places and parks for poor people, that's a really special opportunity and something that shouldn't be passed up. I think the protected bike lanes or the separate bike lanes along that Argo are really needed and the connections down to the trail, the Platte River Trail are very needed there. It's currently pretty hard to access the trail and it's unsafe to do so. And it's very old infrastructure and I think there's a lot of room for for improvement. But the piece that probably is most exciting to me is how this is all going to be improved to connect people to the river, create a more meaningful place along the river. As I said, I grew up in Denver. I spent a lot of time in this area. I used to live up the street up until September of this past year. And, you know, the river is a it's something that we only have on of and it's something that we haven't treated well over the past hundred or so years. And using development to to improve it is something that we should definitely say yes to. I will see the rest of my time. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Jordan. Our next speaker this evening is Susan Powers. Evening, Madam President, and members of the City Council. I wish I could see you in person rather. Than this way, but we'll take it. My name is Susan Powers, president of Urban Ventures. I live at 1475 Dale Gainey Street in Denver. Council District nine have been here for living here for for 16 years. Last month, Golub and company selected Urban Ventures and River Development as their. Affordable housing partner. On the demand scenario market site, and we're. Moving forward with the development. Of a very unique addition to Denver, which will offer supportive housing to homeless youth young. Adults between the ages of 1825. Shannon Cox Baker was a founder of River Development, and I have both been involved in the creation of hundreds of. Affordable housing units over the past 20 years, and we have learned a lot about what. Works and what doesn't. What we see around us every day is that people in this age group of 18 to 25 year olds are some of the most vulnerable people and need. Special or special combination of services to help them move their lives in a different direction. The service provider together, who I hope to be hearing from soon, Chris Nelson. Has an. Excellent track record and with their experience, we believe this project will be a successful success for the. Residents. When we presented this concept to Gala, they fully embraced it, which we know is a. Critical is critical. To moving for. An idea to reality. We reached out to the. Community and we're becoming getting. What we believe will be a long term relationships with a number of organizations. To help us make this the best housing environment for residents, Shannon and I are working on a number of affordable housing developments in the metro area. And see this relationship with the globe. As the strongest commitment to. Affordable housing that we've seen with a master developer. That will truly. Incorporate affordable housing throughout. Their development and to also support the creation of housing for a very low income population. As you know, there's currently no affordable housing exist in the generico market neighborhood and we can have another conversation about how about how we got to that point. But we are where we are. Through Gallop's commitment and this project that we're developing, 15% of the units will be affordable and we're exceeding their requirement. For creating 40 units. That are at below 60%. Because what we plan to develop is. 56 units that will be at the army levels of 30. To 50%. In addition, Gallup is assisting us with some of the. Pre-Development issues on the site so that we're ready to submit for tax credits in August of this year. Finally, when I think of those young adults, I know that they are the future. They are our future. So what could be more impactful for us and for Gallup and for Rivett than to address their housing needs in our developments? We hope this serves as a model for other development developers in town and I can assure you that what we create in this property. Will be important for the lives of people. I appreciate your attention and hope you support the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Joe Loconte. Good evening, council members. I'm Jill Logan to the executive director of the Denver Street Partnership and a resident of the city's Park West neighborhood. I'm speaking today in support of the proposed zoning change. The Denver Street Partnership is a coalition of community groups advocating for people. Friendly. Streets in Denver. Streets that are designed. For people are living in public. Spaces that connect us to job. School. Services and each other and. Help foster health, happiness and. Opportunity for community members. The proposed development at Tin Argo Market will. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safety within the. Neighborhood, as well as access to downtown and other surrounding areas. The Demonstrates Partnership is particularly supportive of the proposals to provide an elevated and protected bike facility on the narrow streets, to build a new multimodal. Access ramp to the Platte River. Trail and to extend the Reno Promenade, the de Argo bike lane, while also connecting to the future bicycle improvements the city is planning on where WADA and Allegheny. Leading people on. Bikes. Directly into Union Station. I therefore encourage you to vote in support of the proposed zoning change. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Nelson. Good evening. Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Council members. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Great. Great. So my name is Chris Nelson. I live in Erie, Colorado, and I'm here to talk to you tonight about what Susan shared. And we've talked a little bit about is this idea of housing for youth experiencing homelessness. And so my role is that I'm the chief executive officer at an organization called Together in Boulder, and we have been around for 55 years and are formerly known as Attention Moms. Now, the reason why this is important is that across our country, in every community, one out of every 30 adolescents will have an episode of homelessness in any given year. One out of ten young adults will have an episode of homelessness in any given year. And we can say the Voices of Youth Count Project through Chief and Hall is the research behind that data. The reasons why young people become or experience homelessness. Are largely. And unequivocally not their fault. So 30% of young people leading the foster care system experienced homelessness within 12 months. Young people are still even in liberal or progressive communities like Boulder or Denver. Young people are kicked out of their homes because of their orientation or their identity. In fact, close to 40% of young people across our country, in every community that are experiencing homelessness, are experiencing homelessness as a root cause of their identity or orientation. So. So I share that information with you. Not to make it seem as if young people who have episodes of homelessness are broken because they are not, but often don't have the skills necessary to get the job in housing to move on. So when we look at protective factors for young people, we talk always about a sense of belonging and community are the most important things for all of us, and specifically young people experiencing homelessness as well. And so there were a couple of comments earlier this evening about, you know, sort of isolating this population. But in fact, the model works because the population builds the network and relationships, the support that we all need it. It's developmentally normative to have young people living in dorm as they transition into adulthood. And it's a cultural norm to want to live with roommates or have to live with roommates in many contexts. And so when we talk. About the. 2700 location on this site, 55 units of permanent supportive housing, non time, limited supportive housing for young people transitioning from episodes of homelessness is life changing for them. It's also a significant upstream solution to the problem of chronic homelessness. The leading cause of chronic homelessness in our country is youth homelessness. So the investment is significant. We have a track record. We've got permanent supportive housing for transition aged youth 18 to 25 in Boulder. I'm going to run out of time here. I obviously urge you to support this rezoning and we'll stick around to answer any questions anybody has. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Darrell Watson. Council, President Gilmore and. Members of council. Good evening. Thank you for your service to the. City and county of Denver. My name is Darrell Watson. I'm a 30 year resident of Denver's District nine. My statement tonight is informed by my leadership roles in enhancing parks and establishing housing stability in Denver. Those roles inform my rationale. But I'm here tonight to speak solely as a resident of District nine to express why. You should. Vote yes on changing the zoning classification for this development. First, the exhaustive three year community engaged process. To develop the land use recommendations within Blueprint Denver. Including the review criteria used by council when. Considering zoning changes. As well as the River. North Plan supports this zoning change. Next, this development incorporates framework from several of Denver's multimodal. Plans and thoughtfully approaches density in a way that builds and connects to convenient transit options, improved. And safe. Biking, walking and. Rolling infrastructure. While providing much needed open space and unobstructed access to our beautiful Platte. River. Finally, there's a development on an industrial parcel will provide a significant. Increase in affordable units. Well above the city requirement. An equivalent linkage fee value. Providing the dignity of housing for many. Who would otherwise not be able to afford to. Live in Denver. It will create needed jobs, immediate construction jobs, and the planned retail space will also create longer term, necessary employment. The developers of this project demonstrated their interest and constructive two way community informed conversations by engaging in discussions with City Council, design, neighbors and other interested community members. These collaborative discussions with an eye to an equitable outcome were the catalyst for increasing our affordable mix to 40 plus affordable units for residents earning less than 60%. Ami also 30% of all affordable units. Will be two bedrooms, providing opportunities for families. Essential workers to live in the city. They love. Denver The equity focus also took them back to the drawing. Board to reduce the height of buildings as they draw down to the river. And to the extended South. Platte River frontage. I understand that these decisions are not just a matter of data. Your decision. Will impact people, and for some. There's a development impacts their sense of what Denver is as well as their sense of place. It's important that you hear those voices. The decision in the end is yours to make. I encourage councils to look. At your North Stars blueprint. Denver and. Denver Comprehensive Plan. 2040. These pivotal documents will lay bare. Any conscious and unconscious. Biases. They provide a clear, consistent, fair. And equitable. Process that all Denver neighbors can rely on as we collaborate on. Imagining and. Building an accessible. City for all. Thank you for voting yes. On this proposal. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Brad Evans. It has become the water waterkeeper for the South. When I first heard about this project, I made some calls and learned a lot about it and found out that they were proposing. I have an MP to prepare for, so we immediately jumped into action then and started having meetings with this developer to start talking about the long term plan and River North that was set at 110. It was set at 55 feet up the river. And what we kept finding was that this development was responsive to having a deeper conversation. About the. Health of the river, the life of the river, and how their project would affect the river in the future. And I'm super excited about what this team has put together. It's a big deal for the South Platte River to have this kind of attention on a project that's this scale of so many years have gone by where projects turn their head, their heads or their backs to the river. And this is one of those rare opportunities where a project is actually making the river its central feature. So I'm here speaking on behalf of the project as the water keeper, because this is one of those once in a lifetime projects. As we all know, the Navajo Market has turned into a. Bunch of five story. Apartment buildings that never really integrated themselves into the river. And this project, as it's planned and as this developer has made major commitments, not just to me as the water keeper, but to as partnering with the city and with the adjacent developers to really develop develop what it looks like and become an active piece. So I'm super excited to ask you guys to support this project because the river is our life and the river will benefit from this kind of development, not just here, but in the future. So if you come across another development, it's going to go to these things that this developer has. I think. Brad, you got me to turn. There you. Go. Go ahead. You know, they came they came to it with a good plan. After our conversations and conversations with the community, they're coming to this project with a great plan. So I think this is an asset to Denver. It's an asset to the river. And as the water people having this kind of input on the project is an awesome. So I'm asking for your support for this project and thanks. Thank you. Our last speaker this evening is Adam Astrof. Hey, City Council. Can you hear me okay? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Yeah. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361 LRT Street in District seven, and I am in support of this rezoning. You know, this was originally supposed to come up in February, and since then, the housing crisis in Colorado has turned into a new and nightmarish phase. There's under 1500 houses, condos, townhomes, whatever, for sale in the Denver metro area. There's bidding wars starting for rentals. We are in a severe housing crisis with basically no slack units. And unfortunately, you know, we're never going to be able to solve our problems trying to extract a few dozen affordable units out of a large scale developer on land next to, you know, a rail line and a highway. You guys, you know, I'm glad I'm the last speaker. I hope the next hearing is fast. And, you know, at the end of this, you can all go home, get a good night's sleep and call Laura all day tomorrow and get her to start the residential infill project. Because unfortunately, if we don't start something now by 2023, all this fear and anger, the alternative facts you heard tonight about, you know, 50,000 magic vacant units. It's just going to get worse. So please support this. We need more homes now, but we can't build next to highways. You've got to take on your own neighborhoods. You've got to take on zoning. People are getting ground up, but we're spinning our wheels and this is going to take five years. So please call up Laura tomorrow and let's fix our city. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Adam. And that concludes our speakers. Appreciate everybody being concise in their statements. And we got through everybody and a good time. So we will now take questions from members of Council on Council Bill 83 and or 515. And it looks like we have up first Councilmember Ortega. Madam President, I wanted to first ask a couple of questions of Scott Robinson. In looking through the documents. It makes reference to the vesting period being ten years, creating vested rights on what can be allowed to be built. So if something doesn't happen outside the ten years, what does that mean to the property? Can you explain that? And I'm assuming that the vesting also is on the side of the obligations that are made as well in terms of some of the infrastructure improvements and other social obligations. Can you speak to that? Scott. Yes. So the vesting applies to certain elements of the zoning and the open space requirements. So basically what it means is that the city cannot unilaterally change those standards without the approval of the property owner for that ten year period. So from the approval of the developer agreement until ten years after that, if you say you cannot apply for rezoning or council members can apply for rezoning without the approval of the property owner. So the the other requirements of the zoning agreement, as far as the public improvements, the affordable housing, all those things, those apply in perpetuity . And any change to those would need to be agreed by both the property owner and the city. So if the ten years has expired and nothing has happened on the property. How how how does that ten year vesting apply? Right. So it's something. Like it used to happen in you know, in the past, if somebody got a rezoning and nothing happened over a certain period of time, it would revert back to the old zoning. So that's what I'm trying to clarify. Yeah. So it wouldn't revert back to the zoning. It would be in place until they went through another rezoning process. So what the vesting means is that the city cannot rezone it. So we cannot do a legislative rezoning, we cannot apply additional design overlays or things like that without the that apply to these particular elements of zone . So it's not the entire zoning code that's in the developing agreement that pulls out certain elements of the zoning code, mostly related to use and heights, so the city cannot change unilaterally during that ten year period. So whether or not over the ten year period. Over that ten year period. The city without the property owners consent initiated a rezoning on that property after that ten year period. It's like any other property in the city where the property owner can initiate a reserving. The city administration can initiate a resulting or council can initiate a reason. Okay. When was the last time this property was an application came forward on this property for rezoning? Yes. This property was reserved in 2007, I believe. Okay. But didn't have it. We had an application since then. And when I say this property, we're really talking about the there's multiple parcels on it with this application. And so can you just clarify that? Yeah. So the the properties within this application have not been resolved required to be resolved since 2007. There are other properties within the larger Donato market development that have been resolved since then. But none of these parcels. None of these specific causes. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. A couple other questions, if you don't mind me continuing. So we have two separate applications, but we're doing one public hearing. So what is the what is the rezoning and what is the development agreement? Okay. So why I mean, historically, we would not allow applications for parcels that were not contiguous to one another. Can you explain why we're allowing that to happen? There's no rule against it. We've done it a few times in the past. It's just not common because normally when a developer build something, they own contiguous properties, but so it's just that it doesn't happen very often. But there's no reason that we couldn't do it and. We've done it. In the past. Okay. In several applications we've seen come forward in other areas of the city that were large parcels. I'm thinking about the seed property in southeast Denver, the Loretta Heights property in southwest Denver. Both of those had strong engagement from CPD along with the developer in engaging the community. Has that similar kind of effort taken place on this property? Uh, not to the level of Loreto or the Sea Dog property. In both of those cases, there were not adopted neighborhood plans providing guidance for those properties. So we had to do more community engagement to understand. In this case, we have the River North plan, so we didn't need that same level of engagement over the large global review process that was required, a public meeting and community engagement. So we did go through that process. So how. Much. I'm sorry to interrupt you. How much does the. CVD now take into account an equity lens around the engagement process. Yeah, certainly. We are always trying to do better in our engagement and create more equitable engagement. And it is something we are we are having an increased focus on. So certainly in our in our processes are. Plans that were recently launched are about to be launched. There's a much greater focus on equity, more detail in how we're going to do equitable engagement. And equity isn't just about what comes out of the actual application. It's the whole engagement process with the adjacent neighborhoods. And seems to me that the engagement should be equal or greater when you're dealing with lower income and people of color communities, as opposed to just relying on existing plans as a means of assuming there's enough guidance to address, you know, certain things as part of an application. So I just wanted to share that. My last question is. Are you familiar with whether or not and maybe this is a question for the applicant. Any city resources are going to be sought out for the housing. On the on the site and particularly the affordable housing that is part of this application. Yeah, I'm not sure about that. So we can either ask the captain or I also have Andrew Johnson and read one thing from hosts. Two available to answer questions about the affordable housing. So either one, it doesn't matter to me who actually answers the question. I just think it's helpful to to know if city resources are being sought after, not not only for the affordable housing, but I guess it would be helpful to know from the applicant if you're looking at a metro district or tax increment financing to make the project work, or will this be solely financed with private resources? Yeah. So looks like we've got Brad here, and then maybe we can get one of the advocates who is probably. Good evening. Good question. Councilman Ortega, I can't speak to the specific details of the of the proposed affordable development. Maybe Ms.. Powers earlier could. But from in terms of the agreement, the 6% AMI in below affordable units that are contemplated as part of that development are eligible for funding from the city and county of Denver through host . The remaining balance of the requirement throughout the rest of the site are not eligible for. Well, I shouldn't say that they're not anticipated to receive affordable housing funding. Should they apply for some further and deeper restrictions are likely to apply for any of the developments that are that are funded with those. So there's there's nothing that stops you from trying to build greater affordability by securing some of those resources, whether it's for tax credits or looking at some of the city housing funds to help augment any of that. Is correct. Correct. To to assume. But that's not necessarily what the commitment is to correct the commitment. No, the commitment is for 50% affordability across the site of 80% and below. And among that 25% of the affordable units need to be affordable at or below 6%. Am I on? The primary satisfaction of that will come in the form of the kind of stand alone team permanent supportive housing development that you've heard some of the commenter speak to tonight. Okay. Have you guys had any outreach from the schools in terms of the school district, in terms of what might be available, given the fact that we're now going to have for close to 2000 units on the DeMarco property footprint, if you will, and any. Potential families that might be there. And as we have more and more kids in in the area. Has there been any input from the schools on a need or desire for a school in this area? Number of public schools is preferred on all rezoning applications, though they received a copy of the rezoning application during the review process. They do not provide us any comments but do not hear back from them on whether they have any concerns or needs related to project. Pretty good. Okay. Thank you, Scott. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Member council member Ortega. Appreciate that. Next up, we have Council Member Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Let's see, I guess, Scott. First, Scott, can you talk a little bit again about the planning board vote? And you said it sounded to me like you were saying that the vast majority of the objection has been dealt with in the development agreement. Is that correct? So the on the money board vote there were four no votes. Recommendation of denial of the antiwar vote. Five in favor of those four. One of them said explicitly he was voting no because of the allowed height along the river, that at that time we had amended the disaster guidelines to include a 65 foot requirement. So the zoning at that time was allowed 100 and Tennessee. And so now out of that 65 foot limit into the design, certain guidelines. So we do believe that addresses the concern from that member. The other three no votes were more related to issues around the impacts on displacement, whether the affordable housing agreement was strong enough. And the other sort of general health, safety and welfare concerns and equity concerns. So we as outlined in the staff report in the presentation, we believe that the affordable housing agreement and the other elements of the zoning and the development agreement address those concerns and requirements. But those have not changed significantly since the planning board hearing. Okay. So what you're saying is you think one of the votes has been taken care of, but there are three that would probably still be in opposition. Yeah. Okay. More or less. Yeah. Thank you. Is there someone here that can speak a little bit about the team plan? Yes. I believe Marco from Daddy should be available. All right. Great. And Mark, if you want to raise your hand or. There we go. We got you in here. So. Go ahead with your question, Councilman. Yeah. Marco, I don't know if you heard my question, but I'm just wondering if you can tell me about the TDM plan proposed for this development. Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. Please go ahead and introduce yourself. Yes. Hi. Good evening, everyone. My name is Marko. Kevin? Yes, I'm a study engineering supervisor for the transportation portion of development review for our department. And there will be a requirement for a2pm program, the specifics of which have not yet been determined. But there will be a requirement. In fact, the the TBM program is actually part of their overall traffic impact program to reduce congestion, but also offer incentives to just just improve mobility in general for not only vehicles, but pedestrians and bicyclists as well as utilization of transit. Okay. How many team planning is is as far as being a formality and our process is a bit new. How many formal TDs plans have had done have been processed? I don't know exactly, but that's certainly something that we can find out. If the question is how many plans that are in process, then I can work with with our department. And are you familiar with the new team ordinance? Yes. Yes, of course. Then I'll be working with Zach to get that information first for council. Okay. That'd be appreciated. Thank you. Last question, I guess is either maybe for Susan Powers or Brad, but the question being I'm a little unclear when this is. I'm trying to remember a conversation regarding the affordable housing element at the Kendra development at Arkansas and Birch. And what I'm remembering is that there was a preference from those dispensing the tax credits that affordable housing be in a single building and my remembering correctly at all. I don't know that it's a preference. Councilman Cashman But in order to receive an award of long term housing tax credits from from Jafa, you need to present a plan for financing. And generally it's on a competitive basis. And all of the things being equal, Jaffa boards. Biotech sorry, tax credits to those deals who have the greatest number of affordable units at the deepest of the affordability for the longest period of time. And so it tends to work that in almost all the big funds, 100% or very near hundred percent of the units are arguably affordable because it requires that level of subsidy in order to make economic sense of the transaction. Great. Last question. Whomever can answer it. If you could just clarify for me again of the affordable units on this site, how many will be in the the building for change and how many will be, I guess, spread throughout the rest of the development? So so the agreement itself contemplates 15% of the overall development. I think the plan is 1000 to 1400 units. So, you know, in the middle of that, we're talking about 1200 units and roughly 180 there for units of affordability specific to 6% and minor below. And that parcel, there has to be a minimum of 40. And I believe I heard the applicants or I'm sorry the developers of that parcel say that they're going to do 55 units. And I've seen Towers nodding. So they wish you can get into further detail. No, that's correct. Councilman Cashman we're planning 55 or 56 units. So it's a lot more than the 40 that are required. And those are at a lower AMI than what the affordable housing plan is contemplating. Yeah, I believe you said 30 to 50%, Susan. Yeah. Yeah. And I think the history of this is that the in the building project and maybe. Chris Nelson can come back. On here and, you know, the young adults that are moving in there, they are below 30%. I mean, they're coming in there without without many sources of income. So it'll it'll be far below 60% Ami. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have. Madam President. All right. Thank you all. And thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Seeing no other hands raise. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 83. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. You know, I've heard a lot of testimony tonight in support of this project that for me were included. Reasons that. Are justification for not passing this through right now. I think that criterion about advancing the public safety and welfare of an area is being missed every time we're settling for the rates of affordable housing that we're allowing and not taking into consideration all of the changes that are happening at the state level. I think that there are many elements of this project that will be great if they happen, but I'm very concerned that we're setting the bar so low in a place where we've heard multiple times we do not have any affordable housing. The need is so much greater there that I don't think that this meets that criteria of advancing the public welfare of this area. And so I'm definitely. Hope, wishing that we could have got something else. But I'm not supportive of this tonight. And I stand with the community members who have highlighted that even if it's come, even if it's consistent with a plan that wasn't built on equity, it's not equitable. And that is what community has raised over and over again. The plans that we're measuring these up against were not equitable from the very beginning, and so we have a very shaky foundation that we're building on. That's it for my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Council member CdeBaca and the scene. I was going to give it a second. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I was reviewing the design guidelines and standards, and I just have to call out design guideline standard 8.4 and what it does in the adopted design guidelines and standards for this whole entire project. It talks about specifically, it calls out along the river. And during my public testimony at Ludy and throughout this entire process, I have talked about how this was an opportunity to have this be the front door to the river instead of the back door to the river. And these design guidelines and standards were amended. May have just said this month of 2021 and it talks about with frontage along the South River loop shall be limited to 55 feet in height and a step back of 40 feet. So I would just like to thank the developer. I would like to thank everybody who worked on this project. And there are tons of design standards in this document that talk about parking. So when you have structured parking that it actually has to look like it is part of the already built environment. It talks about where pedestrian lighting, it calls out where pedestrian lighting is. It calls about calls out specifically even benches and landscaping. And it calls out the need for more trees. And it gives a lot of specificity to where actually where trees are supposed to be planted. I wish I had more design by my standards like this in northwest Denver as I was doing projects. I'll definitely be looking at this document and taking cues. It talks about Windows transparency. So in Denver we have heard about how architecture is not taking cues from the built environment and how our community does not feel that the infill development and redevelopment is lasting quality architecture. And I really believe that some of these design guidelines and standards will actually get this project to be a lasting project for the next seven generations. I'm I've been pleasantly surprised while browsing this document, so I just want to thank everybody on the project team to get it this far . These are pretty phenomenal design guidelines and standards. And with that, I will be offering my support this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. First, I wanted to share that that I share some of the sentiments of the community and concerns about just overall impact to the gas communities around the issue of displacement. We've seen that happen in their communities and obviously the five point community has experienced that as well. But that hasn't been a result of this particular project because the cargo market was a vacant parcel of land after the actual market left the city of Denver. This has not been a site where residential existed until, you know, more recent new buildings have been added to this site. I am excited about the opportunity for the 15% affordable housing. It's not as much as everybody would like to see, but the fact is we don't have the ability to demand or require that this application has been in the pipeline. And, you know, before any state legislation passed and as you all know, the Telluride ruling does not allow the city to it. You know, it did not allow the city to demand any affordability in projects that didn't have public financing in them. That was part of why I was asking the question. And obviously it doesn't preclude any portion of the property, particularly the what is designed to be the affordable component of this project to go after and secure city financing or charter financing to bring that affordability down, to be able to serve the emission levels that are identified in the project. I think the fact that this project interfaces with the river and creates greater opportunity for activity along the river is going to be good for the area. All of this development activity that's happening in this area also, I think, will put a lot more pressure on the city to step forward and to create the opportunity for an entire rebuild of the crossroad shelter across the street from this site. And make sure that not only do we have an emergency shelter that can meet people's immediate overnight needs, but that we have the ability within cities in this area to build up and be able to have more housing on that site and do a greater job of meeting the needs of of, you know, our vulnerable population in our city that is in need and demand of of more affordability. The fact that this will have 30 to 50 am I on the site I think is a good thing. So all of that to say that I will be supporting this tonight, I think as we have the opportunity down the road to look at the Coliseum property, which we the city of Denver own, we have the ability to demand a lot more from that site because it's city owned land. And I look forward to the opportunity to be engaged in that and make sure that that truly is a property and a project that will have full engagement with the community. The fact that we've got large parcels like this where we're doing a greater job with city staff time, that should be the same with these projects in this area of town as well. We're seeing that happen right now at the park, your golf course. But some of these large parcels in this area of town, we have not seen that same city staff time investment. And that I think needs to change because that's part of the equity in how our agencies are supposed to be doing a better job in engaging with our lower income communities. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next step, we have council pro tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I'll just be really quick. I appreciate all of the partners. That have connected on this project from everything from youth housing to mobility and transportation to the waterway. I do want to mention, I think piggybacking on Councilwoman Ortega's comments, there is a tool coming through the state. It's been passed by both the Senate and the House, and it's on the governor's desk for signature. And that's House Bill 1117. That would give local, local jurisdictions the ability to create affordable housing standards. We don't have that right now. And that's that's the handcuff that we've got. But there is an advocacy opportunity right now for us to be able to open up this window statewide. And I look forward to seeing that happen. I do support the work that's gone into making this project as as open as it as it is and as open as it can be. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Torres. Next up, we have Councilmember Connie. Thank you. Council President. I just want to observe what I think may have been a disconnect for some of the folks who testified today. Some folks maybe were very aware of all the components of the project and still opposed it. And I get that and it's fair. And I will just say that the community that has pushed hard has probably created space and resulted in more of these units in this project than would have been otherwise, even if it has been quite gotten to where you hope it would be. So I want to acknowledge those those folks. I also think there were those who testified who saw only a slide that mentioned 60 and 80% of am I. And this is a disadvantage of having a staff led process where rather than the project team getting in to share the story of the fact that they will go above and beyond that and that they already have a contract for sale, and that those units might be contingent on getting other funding. But that let's I just want to be really clear and underline this, because I think it might have gotten lost, folks. This this project will build housing for youth who are experiencing or exiting homelessness. That includes those youth do exist in this neighborhood. I have seen me any youth studies and you know have family members who've worked on projects. There are foster care used in this neighborhood who are at risk of homelessness. And there are those who have, you know, probably already been trying to make ends meet on their own with parents who've been deported or parents who have not been able to care for them. And so I do think that these these youth aren't necessarily other youth. They're Denver's youth. And if we voted this down tonight, we would be eliminating an opportunity for 50 plus units of housing for those experiencing homelessness. And I do think there are some who testified who did not realize that because it wasn't part of the presentation , it was part of the testimony that followed. And so that's just a disadvantage of this process. But I believe the project meets the criteria and I want to thank so I will be voting for it tonight. But I also just wanted to piggyback on Councilwoman Torres's point about 1117, because I think that I want to be clear , I don't think this project necessarily might have turned out differently if 1117 were the law of the land, because inclusionary housing is, at the end of the day, a market based tool. It is about taking land that was already purchased at a market rate and people who have to go to banks and lend and investors and pay them back interest rates and then leverage affordable housing within it. There are almost a thousand a thousand inclusionary housing ordinances across the country, and almost every one of them is between ten and 20% of affordability. And almost every one of them is between 50% and 80% of area median income. There are a few exceptions. You know, Boulder goes up to 25%. They also have some higher arms in there. Some cities go to lower AMI levels. Maybe they get you know, they may give bonus points for going below 50% of AMI, but then they layer subsidy or they get many fewer units. I just want to, you know, kind of set the stage because I think that as as all eyes turn from the state capital to Denver and we had to answer these questions when we went through the process. Right. Councilman Hines was at one of the hearings, but we were asked, can we trust local governments? Do you understand, Dan, that you can't require 50% of units at 30% of AMI? This tool is not well designed for that. I will say that for a single parcel you're going to get less flexibility for even for example, this parcel, this rezoning has multiple parcels, so it created the opportunity for this lower AMI housing. But if you just had, for example, a single parcel to be able to leverage that type of housing that requires services would be tougher . So I do think that as we begin to get questions from the community about what this new tool that's coming from the state legislature can do, I do think it's important that we all, as a body, spend more time thinking about the fact that it will continue to be a limited tool. We've sometimes gotten there through a voluntary agreement like today's vote. We've sometimes gotten there through requirements that were added because of financing, right where TIFF was involved or other sources of city funding, where we've given up vested rights, we've been able to negotiate. But there's a reason why a thousand ordinances in across the country come up at a similar level. And so I do want to just say that we're going to continue to have this tension about whether this particular tool can get as far as the community needs. And I think it can't it has to be paired with the other entities placement strategies that this community has also been fighting for. It has to be paired with the investment of public owned land like we have in Washington and on other streets. It will continue to have to require all of those other pieces because if the project. Can't be built. And I get for some folks, that's a goal. The goal is we'd rather leave the parcel vacant and that's that is a fair position for someone to take. But if the goal is to get some of the affordable units, the market limitations will apply. And I just want it because that this whole debate was the little bit surrounding that tension. And I just wanted to preview where I think we're going to keep having that tension even as we have more legal tools. It won't change the math so much. It might change the political leverage, but it won't change some of the ways this tool works. And I'm happy that we can bring in some national speakers maybe and start socializing some of this stuff and how it works and and preparing ourselves for the proposals we get from CPD. But I know for tonight I just, you know, again, the criteria are met, I'll be voting for it. And I appreciate, you know, a really heartfelt debate and the need that is coming out in all sides of of those who testified. So they. Thank you. Councilmember Canete, Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. There are a lot of reasons why I think this is a great project. I want to make one very narrow extension to to to the comments for the record. And maybe this is partly because of my experience with the safe outdoor spaces, both of which were in District ten. Councilmember mentions the, the, the program for, for services for the youth. And I think this is an amazing program. And I just want to share that. I, I was sad that it didn't it didn't come to fruition in a place that would have been visible outside my window. So, you know, just that I know that there is that, you know, the conversation article United Methodist Church. I would love this sort of program in my back yard or in my front yard, you know, and and that the the developer has been willing to to add that to to the to the project, I think is, you know, again, I'm just doing a very narrow extension. But adding adding this to the project I think is is great. I think it will be transformative for these. Youth, of course. But I think it will be great for the neighborhood as well and will have minimal negative impact and a whole lot of positive impact. Thank you, Councilperson. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate all of my colleagues comments. I believe the criteria has clearly been met, and I just wanted to take a minute to say it's exciting to see a project that's serving so many different levels of the people that live in this city. And I get it. For some people who think it doesn't go far enough, I support. And second councilwoman, can you just comments and I'll just say a little more bluntly, I think people don't understand math and that's the reason why, because you're not going to the the expectation that you're going to build something and intentionally lose money . No one is going to do that. And that's why the levels are not as high as some people would like. And I a second Councilman Canisius having other CS come in to say why they are at the levels that they are, but to say no to this project serves no one. And it actually hurts us more than it helps. And so I want to let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good because you think this should be higher, because this will be a great project for this community and we'll do really good things. And I'm excited to support this and hope that a majority of my colleagues do as well. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon, and seen other hands raised. I'll go ahead and chime in here. I do believe that the criteria has been met and it's been nice to see some of the changes and the partnerships that have developed through this process. More so and happy to support it this evening and appreciate all of the comments and the questions by my colleagues. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 83. CdeBaca. No. Clark. I. Said. I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I. Can I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. One eight 1212. I's Council Bill 20 1-0030083 Excuse me Council Bill 20 1-0083 has passed. Councilmember Sandoval. Will you please put Council Bill 20 1-0515 on the floor?