A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3225 Denargo Street in Five Points. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-B, UO-2 to C-MX-16, DO-7 (industrial to mixed-use), located at 3225 Denargo Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.
As such, Blueprint Denver directs the majority of growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas served by transportation options as applies to Tanaka market. The subject property falls within the plans growth strategy area of high and high medium residential areas in D and C contexts, which anticipate 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment by 2040. For this growth strategy to be effective overall, the city needs to channel housing and jobs into appropriate places such as this to achieve other plan goals. Now moving on to the River North Plan, which city council adopted in 2003. The subject property falls within the plan areas southwest corner as outlined in the yellow triangle. In this area. It specifically calls for redeveloping Tanaka Market into a mixed use community with pedestrian oriented transit supportive design. The proposed CMC 16 zone district and the design overlay would help achieve this plan's vision by continuing the build out of an urban center with a compact, mixed use and pedestrian friendly environment. The requested zone district already meets the required criteria for consistency with adopted plans without additional support from housing and inclusive. Denver. The city's plan that outlines strategies to create and preserve strong and opportunity rich neighborhoods with diverse housing options that are accessible and affordable to all Denver residents. Nevertheless, the proposed rezoning, along with the aforementioned Affordable Housing Agreement, helps implement a key recommendation of the plan to promote affordable mixed income and mixed use housing. Now when we consider whether the rezoning meets criteria too, we have to assume that future development proposals will follow the proposed Cinemark 16 zone district regulations if they're approved. If they don't meet CMC's 16 regulations, then developments won't be permitted in regards to the third criteria. If the rezoning is approved, the proposed development would introduce the first affordable housing and commercial space and jobs to Tanaka Market. It would also improve the streetscape, adding a detached sidewalk where none exist today, adding new trees and replacing streetlights. The project would also comply with the Green Building Ordinance by providing green space on site and 5% greater energy efficiency than the building code requires because the project provides those health and safety benefits. We have to answer yes to the question about whether it also meets Criteria three. Justifying circumstances for the rezoning request include changing conditions and adopted plans. Recent physical changes near the subject site includes several new apartment buildings in the generico market area. Reconstruction of Brighton Boulevard. The addition of bicycle and pedestrian connections through the area and a new neighborhood park. In addition, the city has adopted the comprehensive plan blueprints on borough and housing and inclusive tender since the approval of the existing IAB Euro two zone district. As stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plans. Overall, the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statement for the CMF 16 End Design Overlay District. Greater detail can be found in the staff report. Finally, CPD acknowledges that this rezoning will facilitate significant change in the area. But based on our objective analysis, we've determined all the review criteria have been met and we are recommending approval. Besides myself, several city staff and applicant representatives are available for questions. Thank you, Libby, for a great staff report. And just to let my colleagues know, if you check your email, we had some difficulties loading the PowerPoint presentation onto Granicus. And so it's been emailed to you as well and reloaded on to the city system. Tonight Council has received 26 written comments on Council Bill 1159. There were four submitted comments in favor of the application and 22 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the submit and submitted written comments to 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 in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 1159 has been read by each member of Council, and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 39 individuals signed up to speak this evening and we will go ahead and get started. And just a reminder to folks, we are still having Spanish translation. And so if you might slow down your comments a little bit so we can make sure and get everything translated, we'd appreciate that. Our first speaker up is Chase Hill. Good evening, City Council and thank you for your time this evening and for your public service. I'm sorry. Silver, Cypress and I live about a mile from the site. 2924 1.8211. Cyprus originally acquired the northern markets back in 2007 and to date has built to products in the area is currently building a third. We've also been active in the broader market for close to 20 years and in just the last 18 months we've signed three voluntary affordable housing agreements with host committee to a combined 168 affordable units, which puts us near the top or at the top of the list for the most inclusionary affordable units offered by a private market rate developer. Slide three My presentation shows that aside from our substantial commitment to providing affordable housing, Cyprus is also committed to socially responsible and environmentally friendly development. Through socially conscious and environmentally sustainable planning and design, we strive not only to improve the quality of life of our residents, but of the communities we develop in as well. Just months ago we delivered a product in Denver that is MGB Screen Certified. We've also delivered leads project in local markets. We're currently a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and we always strive to reduce the carbon footprint of our residents. We're also at the forefront of developing inclusionary zoning, driven, affordable housing and often build well beyond the minimum required affordable housing imposed by local municipalities. As we have committed to here, Slide five on our presentation shows that within a couple of blocks of the subject site, there are currently three sites highlighted in green that are zoned for 180 to 220 feet, as well as another see 16 sites in addition to several eight and 12 story sites. As explained by Libby, this area is also designated as high residential by Denver Blueprint, which is the highest density designation for residential within that plan and is currently consistent with the 16 zone. Slide six shows our site plan and here are the highlights. It's a six story project with 326 units will include 49 affordable units or 50% of of the total 33 units day of stay in line 16 at 16. It will also include 6000 square feet of retail, which would add to the 7000 square feet we're currently building across the street will provide nearly 15,000 square feet of much needed retail to help significantly improve this messy, mixed use district that we started many years ago. The target market has been labeled as close to everything but next to nothing, and we're determined to change that. These latest projects, in addition to all this, we will also deliver nearly 10,000 square feet of private and publicly accessible open greenspace. And lastly, we'll provide electric vehicle charging stations within the project, and we're working on an RTD bus stop. We also have reached out to 13 different autos. Of the 13. We reached out to eight groups engaged or willing to be with us. Of those eight, seven issued letters support the most time are spent with the Gas Coalition, where we unfortunately cannot commit to their 50% affordable, 30 to 50%. But we did increase our offering many times, including a 50% increase in affordability from 10% to 15% at 1680 AM. Thank you for your time and I'm here for questions. Thank you. Next up, we have Justin Croft. You're muted, Justin. Good evening, members of City Council. Thank you for your time today. My name is Justin Croft. I live in the Cole neighborhood and work in the Renner neighborhood. I was also the Rainbow Bid president for its first five years, my term ending just this past June. I was one of the handful of community representatives who worked closely with KD to craft the requirements and language of design a really seven runner design overlay. I was actively involved also in helping to craft the affordability overlay or the incentive height and affordability overlay at the 30th and Blake Station and surrounding area, which was intended to be a density bonus. In other words, a greater height adjacent to the transit station provided to ostensibly take advantage of transit and reduce automobile dependance. This would be a lot of developers provided housing for the community already in place rather than new community members at a price point that was affordable for those community members. For this reason, I support the push to have this project include affordable housing and I appreciate the work that has been done to encourage that. Today, I'm here to underline the importance of adhering to the spirit as well as the requirements of the seven, the runner design overlay. And I would call on the City Planning Department to take another look at the Dennard on market area. It's no longer one large pad as it once was, and it should connect people to Brighton Boulevard, to the South Platte River Promenade, to the Rainbow Park and all the other public improvements that have taken place. All public spaces should receive the same attention to detail as minor design overlay seven did. The city should match the requirements that we hold our developers to. And because this will be the first time the design overlay seven has been met in the general market area, this developer has an unusual challenge in trying to provide active ground floor space in a neighborhood that didn't previously require that with apartments at the ground level as well as above. So I call on the city to support those efforts to support the developer, hopefully working in good faith to meet both the legal requirements and kind of the spirit of activating that part of the city. And again, I do support the inclusion of affordable units in this project as well. I am also available for questions. All right. Thank you, Justin. Our next speaker is Nolan McDowell. Thank you, President Gilmore. My name is Nola Miguel. I'm the director of the GSA Coalition. The Globally Responsive Coalition. Facilitates. A committee called the Development Committee. It's comprised of neighborhood residents and three neighborhood renos, which include the first, the Elyria, Swansea Neighborhood Association and the Illyria Global and Swansea and Partners. And two nonprofit organizations, including that are community driven, including the Coalition and the Center for Community Wealth Building. Each of us focus on different aspects of equitable development. Tonight, we will strive to show counsel that this proposed use of land does not meet the criteria of furthering health, safety and well-being in our area and does not meet the planned guidance. As far as the nine equity goals and 23 strategies that are in the comprehensive plan 2040. The key equity concept that guides blueprint Denver committed to reducing inventory to. We hope that you have our letter in your records to review from our committee that provides written documentation of our arguments and some data. You've gotten calls to your offices. And tonight, you'll hear from neighbors impacted by displacement, concerned neighbors and neighborhood groups, allies and other neighborhoods that worry about a precedent being set for large scale growth on the backs areas facing displacement without protections and equity measures in place. Urban Council members, we come to you with an ongoing conundrum around development and growth in Denver and how and where to do it in an equitable manner. We continue to come to you in desperate need of the dire impacts hitting the communities where neighbors are an ongoing threat to involuntary displacement, facing rent and property taxes, and extreme threats to the health right now. During the COVID 19 pandemic, we're not here tonight or our prophet or her minor concerns. We're here tonight to defend the survival and basic well-being and health of ourselves and our neighbors. We opposed the 16 storey reason at 32 to 25 DeMarco. We do not believe this land use promotes health, safety and well-being of the area and in fact, quite the opposite. We believe an ongoing use of light industrial would support the need for jobs in the community and IT growth and residential mixed use happen here. It's happen incrementally and equitably. Prevent involuntary displacement. I with my screen. No. No. The sight like an elephant. All right. Thank you so much, Nola, for your comments tonight. We really appreciate it. Next up, we have Kevin MATTHEWS. Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm also on the board of Unity, Denver. I just want to read something. This is a study by several authors James Ryan, James Asquith, Evan Mast and David Read. And this is a combined study from the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. A major obstacle to new housing construction in gentrifying neighborhoods is the fear that new units will induce additional housing demand, increasing local rents and fueling further gentrification. Although this is counterintuitive, there are many plausible mechanisms by which an increased concentration of wealthy households could make a neighborhood more attractive to other wealthy households. However, there is little to no empirical evidence on this topic. We study induced demand for new apartment complexes in gentrifying areas, using listing level data on rental prices from Zillow and exact household migration data from in future preliminary results. Using the spatial difference in difference approach suggests that these induced demand effects are overwhelmed by the effect of increased supply in neighborhoods when new apartment complexes were completed between 2014 and 2016. Rents in existing units near the new apartments declined relative to neighborhoods that did not see new construction until 2018. Changes in in-migration appear to drive this result. Although the total number of migrants from high income neighborhoods to the new construction neighborhoods increases after the new units are completed. The number of high income arrivals to previously existing units actually decreases as the new units absorb a substantial portion of these households. On the whole, our results suggest that on average, in the short run, new construction lowers rents in gentrifying neighborhoods. I would like to add that this is not the only study available. I could have used a few others, and I would like to also add that there's some people that will say that adding some fly is not enough to solve the issues at the lowest end of the income scale. This is, of course, correct, but adding supply is going to be a necessary precondition in preserving those affordable units that already exist. And when you consider that this project has 49 affordable units, that is an extra bonus. Gentrification is simply a symptom of population and job growth, outpacing the housing stock. If you don't build homes in one area, those needing housing will build up the available housing in another. The solution to this are actually pretty simple. Zoning wealthy areas, especially those zoned for only single family homes, increasing number of units per square mile in urban areas, and abolishing wasteful zoning regs like parking meters. Thank you, Kevin. That's the time we have allotted. Next up, we have Jesse Paris. The counselor that I was watching at home. My name is Personal Representative Muhammad. Now Blackstock, a move for self defense, positive action for social change, as well as the party of Colorado. And my move and I will be the next November in 2023. I would like to read a brief statement from the Yes Coalition enables a fight with bipartisan global various ones here about this new tonight. The GSA coalition neighbors the fireplace global where I was once the assembly impacted communities stand in opposition of this rezoning tonight by Texas based developer Cypress Real Estate Advisors for a pair of 16 storey high and finished luxury apartments at 30 to 35. We ask that neighbors across our communities and across the city to stand in solidarity to help us deny this rezoning request for the better part of a decade. Denver Communities of color, made up of majority of low wage workers and renters, have faced a new wave of extreme displacement pressures driven by development and investment, compounding these devastating impacts to family and community help, our neighbors, who have long breathed life into our communities, are now pushed out of them. There is a very visible pain in our communities, a constant worry with stomachs full of anger. When we see our city government in partnership, in sponsorship, for profit developers who have given the profit motives and the legality to take all we have built away from us. This extractive model of development is building a timber that is unaffordable to most, while holding historical disparities and inequalities that target low income. And communities of color, the high risk of housing instability and displacement join us in our collective effort to push Denver to create a new standard of development in our communities. We have a right to stay in our homes. We have a right to not be priced out of our communities. We have a right to lead equitable processes and influence major developments in our communities that have massive impact on us all. We have a right to demand at the city government, work for the House the stability of everyone instead of exploiting profit motives for the benefit of developers. In conclusion, this area was just swept three weeks ago. I was at the suite, Don house the suite. And across North America, adjacent to the proposed sites. Instead of addressing our own house neighbor problem, you better sweep it out of sight, out of mind. Tonight, city council. You have to make a. Jesse, are you the time we have? Next up, we have David Pardo. Hello. City Council, this is David Pardo. I currently live in the Highlands neighborhood, but for six years I lived downtown both in the central business district and next to train tracks in the Union Station neighborhood. I support this project. The production of 326 apartments as well as some. Absolutely. Needed commercial space in this neighborhood. It fits with the plan for this area. It's something that will provide housing for 400 people, at least with construction of a building that size. Who will not be buying in places like Globeville and Alegria, Swansea, and instead will proceed to rent in this new building, assuming it's built. This is critical for promoting the connection of Denaro to the rest of the city. Right now, everybody who lives there has to drive because as people said earlier, it's next to everything and it has nothing. Producing this building will mean that the area will likely get better transit, it will absolutely get better pedestrian infrastructure and will promote the increase in the amount of green space that's provided in the area. And in reality, as somebody who lived in an area that used to be effectively derelict Union Station and then was developed, it has the potential to help promote the production of a vibrant neighborhood in a place where right now there are a number of apartment buildings and a number of industrial buildings that don't provide all that many jobs. We as a city have a shortage of housing. We don't have. Enough places for people to live. That's why there are homeless people on the streets. There are people like me who have a moderate amount of income who can afford the rent, the rising rents. And that inherently pushes people out of the places where rents used to be low. If we produce buildings that provide some affordable housing and also additional market rate housing, that decreases the likelihood that people like me will end up displacing those with low incomes. To me, this building could potentially be my home when it's built, and if I live there, I won't be displacing some homeowner or some renter who is living in the Highlands or who's living in Greece. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Terry Bowen said. And Evening Council members. I'm Terry. Burnside. I'm a resident in District six. I'm here to speak against the request for a zoning change at 30 to 25 Tanaka. I'm speaking in support of the GSA Coalition, a community effort of residents in Globeville, Luria, Swansea and the Five Points neighborhoods to stop yet more development. That prices them. Out of the neighborhoods. In the process, we've all come to know as gentrification. The Texas based Cypress Real Estates Advisors is the force for gentrification that is requesting the zoning change in this case and that the GSE. Foolish Coalition and I oppose Globeville. Elyria, Swansea and Five Points are all traditionally communities of. Color and less often emphasized. They're all. Traditionally working. Class communities. In the general comments session. Tonight, we heard many citizens speak against the funding of top tariff and in favor of treating our houseless neighbors with simple decency. At long last, it's clear that the housing crisis and cop terror both are exacerbated by the development that prices people out of their homes and neighborhoods and vice versa. As the Gas Coalition can tell you better than I, every time the developers come around to lap up and another opportunity for profit in the housing industry, they always promised to devote a substantial portion. Of their projects to low income units. And it never seems to quite happen. Certainly not to the degree that meets the needs of the working families in the cities, the ones that make the city run. So I'll just reiterate the yes coalition proclaims the following. They say, We have a right to stay in our homes. We have a right not to be priced out of our communities. We have a right to lead equitable processes and influence major developments in our communities that have a massive impact on us all. We have a right to demand that the city government work for the housing stability of everyone instead of exploiting profit motives for the benefit of developers. The US Census tells us that in the last decade of apartments built in this city, 51% were luxury units, 32% were market units and 17% were low income units. That makes 83% of apartments at market rate above. And if we wonder why the suffering of our houseless neighbors is so widespread with residential space that might house them sitting empty. This is a major reason not to mention that outright homelessness is not the only consequence of gentrification. The cohesion of neighborhoods suffers where fragmentation also means the continued segregation of lived experience. Housing justice. Is crucial to racial justice, and both. Are necessary for. Any hope of class justice. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alfonso Espino. Well, thank you, counsel. I would first like to state that I am. A organizer for the Gas Coalition standing in opposition of this proposed reason. More importantly, I lived and I was born and I was raised all 24 years of my life so far. Thankfully, in the Elyria, Swansea community, I can still not afford to move out. So the problem is not a supply and demand issue too, because there's plenty of housing in. Last year, supply and demand was the issue. Why has the problem not been solved? It's because we keep building what is not needed. If we you just heard 51% of the units built in the last ten years. Partly you do because of such dramatic changes in land you use. Our luxury units. We've seen the reports out in Denver's media that suggest that they are mostly vacant and I house we have also submitted a document with a lot of other information related to involuntary displacement. I would just like to start off with the most grotesque when. Now for the period between 2008 and 2020, there was a 470% total increase in average property values in our communities. 470%. And people still have the audacity to come on here and suggest a building. More of this is going to solve the problem. How does any of this align with anything that's equitable? None of it does. In Olivia, in Swansea, since 2010, the rent has the median. GROSS rent has increased from $817 to about over 1105 points. That has gone from two 737 to 1245. Now it's over that in Globeville, it's it's gone from 839 to over a thousand as well. And people still have the audacity to sit here and tell us that building more. Same of the problem. A 470% increase in total property tax values in the span of under two decades is traumatizing to a community. And if city council cannot understand that and finally change the tide in Denver's housing crisis, then when will it ever start? If now they're demagoguing on January 1st, when the eviction moratorium ends, millions of Americans, thousands of Denver ites, will be left out on the streets. And people are still here talking about building more luxury and market rate units. Furthermore, the proposed affordable units, the rich real estate has. Offered voluntarily, though, are not affordable in our community. The maximum that a person can afford currently in Denver's rental market is under 50% AMI. None of these units can accomplish that. None of these units are actually affordable. You. That's your time. Next up, we have Darryl Watson. Madam President and members of Council, thank you for your service to the city and county of Denver. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm a 30 year resident of District nine. I'm a former president of the Wichita neighborhood, R.A., former co-chair of Denver Game Plan for a Healthy City and a former member of the Land Use Transportation Advisory Committee. My engagement in supporting Denver parks and land use spans over two decades. I'm here to express why you should vote yes on changing the zoning classification for 30 to 25 to narrow street from industrial to mixed use. My rationale. Is as follows. The exhaustive three year community engaged process to develop the land use recommendations within Blueprint Denver, including the review criteria used by council and considering zoning changes, supports this zoning change. This parcel bordering Globeville but in Five Points, is. Currently surrounded by apartments of similar height. And density. This private development, unlike those aforementioned market rate apartments, provide for 15% affordable units, with some units at 60% of AMI. Preventing displacement in District nine is a priority for Denver City Council and for residents of the city at large. This development on an industrial parcel will not directly create displacement. It will provide a measurable increase in affordable housing units providing the dignity of housing for many who would otherwise not be able to afford to live in Denver. It will create needed jobs, good paying, immediate jobs through construction. The planned retail space will also create longer term, necessary employment. Cyprus properties demonstrated. Their interests in a constructive two way conversation by engaging the discussions with Denver City Council, denying neighbors and other interested community members. Those collaborative discussions with an eye to an equitable outcome. What a catalyst for Cyprus to increase the. Percent of affordable housing from the initially. Proposed 10% to 15%, which is above the historic norm of 8 to 10% for similar developments not only in D9 but across the city. I understand that these decisions are not just a matter of data. Your decision will impact people. And for some, this. Development impacts their sense of what Denver is, as well as a sense of place. It is important that you that you hear those voices. The decision in the end is yours to make in these emotional circumstances. I encourage you to look to your North Star blueprint, Denver and Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040. These pivotal documents will lay bare any conscious or 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. Next up, we have Dianne Thiele. And Diane, you might need to unmute yourself. I am speaking against the. Rezoning request for 3225 an hour ago. It's almost ten years past time for our city to fundamentally change its process for property development. So we make Denver a city for. People of all incomes. Not just a gentrified city. We need to protect the neighborhoods of people of color. Neighborhoods where immigrants live. And low income neighborhoods. The residents of these. Heavily. Impacted neighborhoods should be. Safe and secure in their homes or apartments. But instead land in their neighborhoods is constantly appropriated by developers with support from the city. The existing. Residents end up not being. Able to afford to live in their homes or rent the apartments the developers build. They are forced out. What needs to change? Personally, I want the city to stop approving any zoning variations for luxury apartments. Townhomes and condos. And luxury mixed use development for ten years. Developers could build these projects only where the proper zoning already exists. During the first six months of that ten year period, the city was. Council. And community input should rewrite the current linkage policy that allows developers to offer a small number of units at the high end of affordability in return for government subsidies and zoning variances. Instead, the city's new guidance should require private multi-unit developers to make a. Minimum of. 25% of their housing units attainable for people in the extremely. Low. Income or low income. And my. Brackets. The big luxury and market rent apartment developers may refuse to build in Denver that would lower the cost of land. The Denver Housing Authority. Local land trusts and nonprofit groups might have more development sites to. Choose from to build low income housing. And money. From this year's homeless housing ballot. Initiative would stretch further. We're told we will not be returning to the old normal after COVID 19. We are about. To hit eviction hell. Come January. People don't have jobs or have been forced to become gig workers, slaves to billion dollar companies. We need to live in the new reality. Protect our communities of color around the city and house people of all incomes. Thank you. Thank you, Diane. Next up, we have Adam Astrof. Oh, you're on mute out of. Hey, Denver City Council. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361, a lady in the Baker neighborhood and I'm also on the board of BE Denver. I am speaking in favor of this rezoning tonight because the reality is, is we're really talking about whether we're going to approve or deny 45 affordable units. Currently, city council doesn't have the authority to mandate affordable housing in our projects. And though we hope that's something the legislature changes and Denver will be advocating for that, it's just not the case right now. 15% is probably 15 to 20% is what you'd be getting with an inclusionary zoning policy. So this is something that we believe passes muster. But I think it's also important to note that, like here we are again having a really contentious rezoning about, you know, multi-unit development and folks from who live in big mansions on the white side of the red line to communities that have been really harmed by displacement, really focus on these. But these are under these are around 20% of the units in Denver. They're only buildable on 20% of the land in the city of Denver until city council takes seriously single unit zoning, which covers 80% of the residential land in our city and is the real driver of displacement by forcing all growth into communities of color. And, you know, these industrial sites, you know, you're just not taking this seriously. And you didn't with the EPA amendment where you kept single unit zoning language in the plan. And I really hope you pass this because, you know, this is 374 homes, 50 of which are affordable for workers in Denver. But this is a crisis. You're hearing the pain of people in gas and it's not a time to be concerned about angry emails or reelection. It's a time to take on a zoning policy that was put in place explicitly for raises purposes that still segregates our city today. The problem here is that building more apartments, it's that we have single unit zoning in our city. So please approve this rezoning and then really take strong action to address the housing crisis and open up development in neighborhoods not facing displacement. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Helen Tekle. I'll let you correct me, Helen, if I pronounced it wrong. It's okay to take a taxi. Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Helen, actually, and I'm the business organizer for the East Colfax Community Collective. I'm here speaking on behalf of the collective and the ease and the community of East Colfax to urge you to oppose the rezoning of 3 to 25 De Niro Street in five points. The development will set a concerning precedent that prioritizes the needs of developers over the needs of our local communities. And we stand solidarity with our. Brothers and sisters at G as coalition. Asking you to reject this of zoning changes. Neighborhoods at risk of displacement, such as East, COVAX and Global will require a different set of standards and equity analysis when looking to the development process. As community members, we are told that developers will be forced to provide community benefits to mitigate the impact on displacement. And in this case, this has not happened. Despite good faith attempts by GSS to enter into community benefits agreement, the developers have only offered 5% units in 60% and 10% of units and 80%, and both of which are higher than the aim high level of. In this type of development were to be proposed in the East Colfax. We would oppose it with. Everything we have as d. As has done, because it is clear that this type of development is not being built to support the community that currently lives in that area. Along the majority of market and luxury apartments, building into the communities that are already under pressure of displacement will only increase the pace at which we are losing our community members. We should not develop just for development sake. We should not oppose such a large scale project if they are not being offered significant, affordable units. If the city can be clear on proposals that come forward and that are not serious about creating affordable options will be approved. We can send strong signals to developers that our first priority in building for residents of our local neighborhoods, which are a heart of our heart. And soul of Denver, will put. Denver as states to achieve our vision for Equitable City with the promise of opportunity for all. Their rights. We must focus on the needs of our most vulnerable residents. This has not happened in this case. It is not enough for CPD to engage with local communities to then proceed to ignore their recommendations. We urge you, I council members to be more fierce in defense of our equity and prioritizing the risk and communities and reject a proposal of rezoning. Of 3225 Durango Street. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Helen. Next up, we have Ty Bell, doc. Good evening, council members. My name is Taobao Alcott. I live in Whittier and I own a. Business that's been in Reno for 21 years. And I was also a former. Member of. The. Business Improvement District. I wanted to take this. Opportunity to ask the council members to consider. A more balanced approach to engaging. Our peers. I feel that it's counterproductive to be both pro affordable housing and yet remain anti-development. You must recognize that affordable. Housing needs private funding. Under the current economic crisis, and with our city's budget falling short by a $190 million, we can no longer afford to alienate. Those who have the means to help. Just as the members of City Council are held. Accountable to their. Constituents. Developers are also. Held accountable to. Both equity partners and the banks to fund their projects. If there is a developer. Like Cypress willing. To bring more affordable units to the table, then I urge. You to listen and negotiate. Terms that are win win. For both parties. If you can't do this, I fear that. Denver will become known as a city unfriendly to. Developers. We are not the only city with a housing crisis and developers do have options. This is not to say. That we should be held hostage, but maybe it is time to rethink our strategy. I do not expect the members of City Council to be. Completely versed on all the intricacies and costs associated with development. But I believe it would be in our city's best. Interest. For each of you to have. Solid resources on both. Sides. In order to better understand. The challenges involved. In bringing a housing project. Out of. The ground. Affordable housing must be. Approached from both in social and an economic perspective. One will not work without the other. Today, you have an opportunity to see the advantages that could be gained. By a partnership with a socially. Conscious developer. I urge you to see the power by voting for. Crew threes on their. 3225. In Arco and. Thank you. Our next speaker up is Maria Elena Jimenez. And we're going to also have translation services. That will rise. When I start this miembros circle. Good evening. Members of the Council. I know your cattle just. Are you the love of sonification? I am against the reunification mes bingo those puntos game crocus on bald eagles. I have no valid points. Number one is il and in case then mirando a said well, maybe physiology as you say. E must be must cambios in this area when they are making open. One is that they. Are making a 16. A building with 16 floors and 16 floors and changes in that area. And one of the things that I'm concerned about. Is any given rocket lab, lab, Papunya. The answer let us get started. This idea is that they're going to get. Rid of a company that that makes salads in that area. Maybe the occupation vessel as it is companhia. As adult tobacco, various personas gave even an globule. And my concern said. Is that they have given they. Are getting rid of that company. That has given jobs to people that live in global areas. Once you. Judgment this, most of it I'm glad is because I'm tobacco. I can think of even that and give us give us the answer the global daily like once you and if we really trust something. And if we really take a look. At that, we're. Going to find very few companies that hire residents that are from global areas. Once. Yeah, and for me that is concerning. And does the system allow other causes that get instant broadband access even if Barack in. Seven Perfect Samantha Piano Sutras and a lot of other. They love you already as one example. And they're not all the symbols. Not for the most part, that it's a center for the soul and one. So my other. Concern is that they are saying that they're making affordable housing, but for who? They well know that people who live in global areas once you cannot pay a 60% ami. You know, Solomon and Estacada as you know tambien and see Capone tossing coal and weed out. And so those are some regard as some folks look, whether or not they saw them. Okay. Some of what I see in my book does the does it dampen when we see them on that was the Canadians you'll say but they love Colosseum they just want to see more negotiation going gonna be more simpler because of llamas that can be natural. I'll ask you that. The Los Puestos proposal that I said must be accessible if you cannot carry on an example. In some instances, yeah it is. Look at get in. I say Solomon de la Lazaro, you'll get get it. And I said, but, but compromising little paracetamol isn't what I meant. There's that baby. And by myself, that's when I said available. So this the. It's not affordable to any of the communities in the surrounding areas. It's not. Affordable to. Five points. Calderwood, Whittier There are very few. People that can afford that, that type of housing. And besides that, when we were in negotiations with them, I'm also a gas member, we asked them that why didn't they ask for tax money from the city? And they said that they didn't want to participate in those in that function. In those negotiations. So who are they making this for? It's not it's not for the people who need it. Does this GOP insulted like it? Because that gave us an album. We ran Dick above it and that's what I look kind of even in Australia. No, sorry. Look at some of the elements of other this are local. He probably meant the most idea that I said indicate this almost as much as they indicate this. Because some people want government, they love rentals. Announcements are lost in Brussels castles, one woman said but I don't know men total time but I don't problem at all but and people who are. Saying that this is going to be a benefit for communities they don't know they don't know what the situation is in our communities because they don't live in our areas. What's really going to happen is, is that this is going to cause displacement in our communities. It's going to make another. Group of it's going to make a lot of. Us become homeless. It's going to increase the rent and increase the tax. So it's not going to help. Boehner says GOP welcomes. They hope that considera Puntos Générale meant that freedom mucho signals the start. But the jungle consists of animals. And I really meant the case that you really meant they like you, that most of them Australia is all I can say. I get considering eagerness up again. I never stop at this. You'll get no LA no laws if they're not approving for I meant there are some girls that Kendall that closer. So I. Am asking city council to please consider these points that I've talked about and for them to consider each each one of the things that I've said and. To consider equity. Equity does not exist in our community. Please consider that and. Don't accept it. I'm asking city council to not accept and and. Not. Not give into this, please. And thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gail LaRue. My name is Gail LaRue. I'm at 4676. Lincoln St 80216. This zone change classification. Will add to the. Destabilization. Of five points Globeville, Elyria and Swansea neighborhoods and undermines our access to equitable housing. Opportunities. This zone change will add. To the. Removal of. People of color from their homes and communities. By increased taxes, increased rents and mixed uses, but not. Mixed. For youth. Of existing residents. Enough is enough. I have lived through this through North Denver. Please don't. Out prices out of the last affordable. Neighborhood in Denver. We can do better. We ask that. This zone change. Request be denied. Let's keep it industrial. Let's look. For industrial partners to. Bring manufacturing back to our inner city. Let's preserve inner city industrial zoning. This property is on a major transit route close to. Rail. Yards and the air park. So the location is perfect for. Creative small. Manufacturing, new inner. City industrial. Space micro enterprises, which will encourage local entrepreneurism but more importantly. Bring back jobs to the community. Empty shop tops are a thing of the past. The zone change is easy and lazy. Let's get creative. These four neighborhoods are original. Live here. Play her work here. Neighborhoods. I, for one, enjoyed walking to. I used. To work at Asarco and I used to love walking to work each. Day. And I believe. We have the opportunity to do something. Creative at this. Location before another easy rubber stamped rezoning. I'm asking you to look. Outside of the luxury apartment blocks and ask. Yourself, is this. The right thing to do? I also ask that we take a look how this process is done. I believe that host is out of touch with neighborhoods needs and. This zone change will put further stress. Upon our community. And please, I ask you to look at our neighborhood, get to know our neighborhood before we add any. More of these. Luxury apartments. To our. To our neighborhood were so fearful. Of being displaced. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Liliana Flores Amaro. Hello, council members. Thank you for having us this evening. My name is Liliana Flores. Amado, and I am a neighbor. And guess in Swansea I live at five 5079 St Paul Street of two and six. I'm also a member of the GTS Coalition and I am asking you to oppose the 16 storey rezone proposed for 3225 ten Argyle Street. It's an extreme change in height and use that merits a critical and creative look at equity and urban development in this area, which it currently is not. The development agreement gives the impression that that we're getting some affordability or equity, but that is not the case. The affordability that that the developer is providing is not relevant to this area. It doesn't meet the needs and it was not agreed to by the community. And so if the city just accepts whatever the developer is giving without pushing back, we will never be able to get to those equitable outcomes that are outlined in all the plans that we've been working on. And we know that the developer did increase the number of units from 10 to 15%. However, it's still just simply not enough. It's not enough units, and it's not enough affordability at 60 and 80%. My equity means should mean that this development process recognizes past harm and does something about that. Equity has to be a lens by which all the aspects of development are examined, and we need longer community engagement processes that involve the the developer and the community directly, as well as changes at the city level to make that to support those processes so that we get to real conversations and not just surface level conversations or a couple of meetings. And then and then we're stuck with these with these timelines. These developments are taxing on residents. We have to be on the defensive with project after project coming in and around our communities. We need the city to stand up and protect its most vulnerable citizens, not the folks who can afford luxury homes and apartments. Our communities. Sorry, it goes to big screen in my notes. When you go to the chamber, our communities and communities across the city will be watching this reason to see how council will continue to depend on extractive land use to obtain development or if it if it decides to protect its citizens. Growth needs to be across the city and not on the backs of our most vulnerable residents. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Shannon Hoffman. Hi. Good evening. My name is Sheehan and Hoffman. I live at one, two, two, six North Pearl Street. I am here tonight to stand in opposition of this zoning request and to stand in solidarity with the neighbors of Five Points Globeville, Larry, Swansea, who want to stay in their homes and their community without the fear of being priced or pushed out. This rezoning is not consistent with comprehensive plan. With the Comprehensive Plan and blueprint, Denver plans that outline equity as a top goal. Now, let me be clear with you all about who I am. I am a white, middle class woman who moved to Denver three years ago. And what I see is that this city operates like this place is the playground of people who meet my profile. And I reject that notion. I reject the inherent white supremacy in that notion. And I ask this council to reject the white supremacy that is baked into zoning policies that systematically push black, brown and indigenous people out of their communities. This Arapaho, you and Cheyenne Land was recently home. This area about an hour ago was recently home to 300 souls who have been pushed out of their homes and pushed around by the city and not provided any support or housing. And I. Is it a coincidence that you swept them right before the zoning request? I think not. I I How dare you sweep 300 people from this area? And then in the middle of a global pandemic and economic downturn, allow an apartment, a luxury apartment building to be built that will push even more people out of their homes and communities and potentially into also being unhoused themselves. There are no justifying circumstances for this reason. And I ask you to oppose it tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alma Urbana. Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Ahmed one. I am here speaking out against that in our rezoning request. I am here as an individual and a staff member of Project Voice, a nonprofit Century Youth organization in Denver. I am a resident of Swansea and I work near the proposed location of the site in Globeville, also called River North on V Court. I asked city council members to recognize the impacts housing insecurity has cost to our communities and how these impacts will stay with us for generations. I have seen just how resilient, powerful our community mutual aid has been, and at the same time, we have also seen how our youth go from motel to motel with younger siblings trying to do virtual class and also with elders with health concerns trying to survive. How can we there ask a 14 year old to log into virtual school if their families are searching for a warm roof while they are themselves working two jobs? Our families brown, black, essential workers are not going to benefit from a 16 storey luxury building, threatening to sweep them like trash, as someone else said about homeless people , since they will be unlikely to recover by 60%. And my affordability. They don't make this much. These developers offers to offer for how much our generations are worth is an insult. This many units in this building is expensive and it will cost us our lives. The De Nada proposal does not align with that comprehensive 2040 plan that contains nine goals and 23 strategies around equity issues. This project ignores the equity as given the ratio of luxury units and, says the president of the city only cares about developers in that the constituents in our streets and neighborhoods. Equity means more than barely. It means leveling the field for our most targeted end points families. Let me remind you that families have the highest rates of COVID, especially birth rates. Equity means supporting our 30%, EMI and 20% in my vulnerable communities, not 50% and my hand outs. This year, the pandemic has resulted in unprecedented results. These impacts require unprecedented solutions. Let's get us on a community ground and support and ask for pass in redirecting effort these resources. Any chance we do not seek at least 50% affordable units in any building is a missed opportunity and a threat to us all. We will be watching this vote across all communities in Denver and the rest of Colorado and beyond. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tanya Cohen. Hi. My name is Tanya. I live at 1111 Osage and District three. I'm here to say that I strongly oppose the rezoning of the previous Arkansas Court House encampment, the site of another brutal sweep last week of 300 people from their homes to make way for the 16 story high end luxury apartment building, an apartment building that is overwhelmingly market rate. I mean, how out of touch are we? Denver now ranks second in the nation, only behind San Francisco. Oakland as the most gentrified city in the U.S., according to the 2020 Metro Denver Homelessness Initiative's State of Homelessness report. Why does the city no longer care about trying to support those diverse, historic, working class families and communities there that are predominantly of color that have called Denver and Colorado home for decades? Those who have contributed greatly and made Denver what it is today. Why have they been abandoned over the past few years? And why is that our priority? Just mainly developers and young white transplants to Denver that can afford these places that are just flooding Reno like we need anymore? According to the same report, the leading cause of homelessness in this region around the country is a lack of affordable housing. This plus racial inequities, stagnant wages and affordable health care, to name a few, create economic conditions in which many among us are unable to secure and maintain stable housing. So Denver's history of diverse and vibrant communities of color who've been abandoned are basically the same houseless people that we are sweeping just a little further down the gentrification line. And we know that native and black people play a profound part in Denver's history, but are disproportionately represented among the houseless as well. How many of us know a friend or family member or acquaintance who has been bankrupt by a health condition that derailed their family for life? I do, and I bet you do, too. Those are probably many of the people that are being swept today. Well, we know they are. I am seeing someone every day in dire need of a donation to prevent them from falling through the cracks in Denver. So at a time when many businesses have closed permanently, temporarily or severely restricted people losing jobs and income, when we should be honoring and showing some loyalty to Denver's historic working class, middle class roots, our communities of color are native communities. By building real, affordable, low income housing and finding ways to support our homeless in that location by building more S.O.S. sites, tiny home villages, or just letting the people stay there and make it a resource rich environment which the new S.O.S. site is. Please. Let's just stop the greed. Enough is enough. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Laird Haugen. Hi. Thank you. My name is Laird. Horrigan and I live in District 94126 Clayton Street. I stand in opposition of the proposed rezoning a 3225 ten Argo Street as part of Build 20 1159. This rezoning request is very similar to a request the City Council approved at 2535 East 40th Avenue. In this case, the developer requested to rezone and propose city council to make a decision very quickly. The developer stated it was costing them money not to have the property rezoning. And by condensing the timeline for rezoning, there was insufficient time for the community to work with the developer to come to an equitable agreement. Two years later, the property currently sits vacant while scrappers are breaking in and stealing whatever value is left. And that's clearly an indication that this timeline was not urgent and that the developer dictated the conversation in that case and not city council. In this case, the developer is from out of state and pushing for a reason to 16 stories of primarily luxury apartments. This is not what the city needs. We have been let down by CDP and host as far as pushing this project through without proper analysis of the impacts and not working with the community. The city needs to do more to structure the development. These development plans to require affordability. To lead the conversation when it comes to reshaping our city. Currently the city is not doing enough to protect the interests of its most vulnerable residents. The city lets these developers push their interests. Instead of the council standing up and fighting for the interests of its residents. The conversation shouldn't be happening between developers, residents and Arnaud's. The city needs to step up and be part of the conversation and dictate what defines affordability in these development plans. I ask that you listen to the people of the city instead of outside interest in development. I ask that you reject this zoning request and be part of the conversation to structure what affordability looks like going forward and how we can have an equitable housing plan for our city. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Angelina Torres. Taurasi. See me. I'm recycling that. Always play miembro de ideas. Beyonce wants you. Hi, my name is angelina torres. I am a member of s and i live in 20th. When I noticed Miembro del Consejo. Good evening city council members Estonia in opposition that they sooner than they those might be cynical their then their goal and I am and I am against the zoning the reason ification of 3325 didn't our goal. But not in Iraq, for your sake, that the most community areas, because they don't have. The support that is. Equitable for the community. We're stuck in office. Okamoto ne aquellos democratico because it was not done with vote and agreements that are democratic. Get okay. Fajardo Nuestro Miembros del Consejo And I believe that our city council. Members have failed. We're stuck in this temperature mirror. I went there. Because they are here to serve the people. Ian dances is there but Joyce there is Thomas up in under the guest then it's a sauna. It's industrial. And we we are giving our opinion that that. Zone is an industrial. Zone. Yes. Eloqua let's look at some of the handy work, the IEEE, the evening news does Familias Nuestras Vecinos. And we are. Defending the zone because that is where. Our. Families and our neighbors make. A living. EOP. And in this Wolfgang, Nancy, are they supranational? And that is where they obtain their earnings for their jobs. Get a gram of a cool stock. Let's keep them sauce. So Strava, what with Amazon ignoring the problem of alcohol, we will see whether we believe that. It is unjust for. Them to lose their jobs because we are in a pandemic. Of COVID 19. Eloqua listed, which has been listed as Comunidad. This little vecinos is on the same level. In which a lot of our the people in our communities, our neighbors are unemployed. Estamos pasando algo dificil parochialism or sobre la loss was. And we are living through. Something that is very difficult. But at the same time, we make this easy. And sentences if they get them off game, keep on going, mash up and see how it goes. Young Cousteau, who saw Columbus on that trabalhadores essentials. And so what we are doing is we're asking you to be just to be just with the essential workers. Working together must be very acting with the community at this. Because we. Want to live. Here in our communities. And, you know, certainly not I'm not going to camp, as Bebe emphasized the marginal but we are must content. Those is the problem as they tend to trafico. Yeah that I we now. Realize that we. We used to live in our communities and we were marginalized, but we were living happy because we were. Not exposed to so much traffic that we now have. Was there enough having illustrated Gaga, Morgan Doc, Red Mosque Fahrenheit Guide Ivan Watson trailer bilodeau alive or le Carré not having gunman was anti-Muslim sentiment. You don't know how we feel when we're trying to cross the street and you see a trailer. That's so long that it goes from one end to the. Other and we're trying to cross. You don't know how we feel. We feel. Nothing. Nothing. The most is the Middle East. That is not how they lost the security of their own lives. All created a lot Arab with the nosotros mes mothers, the forbidden city. Anything, something. We feel bad. We don't know if we should rent to one side or rent to the other. And we feel really bad. We don't know what to do at that time. Right at that instant. Get out, get out. Get them on to the farrugia. I left construction as the long over the far right you'll see inside it in common loss theme of think with them whilst they English former pharmacist there are two and they currently the only our truly they gave ethicists a rather WannaCry days earlier parallel otro lado within those having common Nazareth prior so. So I think that you're just bringing upon all these constructors and. Developers without knowing how we live, without knowing how we feel when we're trying to run from one side to the other. When we. Feel, ah, the stress. You don't know what. It feels like to be in this situation. No photos, almost based as the majority of. Then they went there and you'll see this in your business. Well, my son, Sienna, skin cancer trust, even my skin with them being and I thought that was and we are seniors that are above we are older. People that are older than 50. And we see people that are older than us that are also living tormented. Kate. I'm being I was a little person saying, oh, they suggested to me that I was going through Fiona's gaydar and just almost grandfatherly with the construction. Get in. Most of them walk away, thankfully, that they pass and people say, Oh. How I wish that this was. Over that others construction with lives over that we just want to live a little. Bit of peace and quiet. And you, so much for your comments tonight. Our next speaker is Yadira Sanchez. Hi. Good evening. Council. City Council. I don't have a camera that I can print on, so I apologize for that. My name is Oliver Sanchez. I have been a struggling neighbor from the Diaz community for. Over 18 years. I live at a heavy point construction due to the I-70. I have seen many people leave. Due to the rise of rent in our area. Changing our diversity in our communities, and seeing the struggle on those who stay and make ends meet. I oppose the zoning change because this will continue to add more displacement in our communities that already have been sacrificed to the new market value homes that I have note that have no room for those who work, for those who work who are working class families or families that all. And make it even harder to home during this pandemic. With rents over 2500. This will soon not be my home. Allowing the zoning to be changed at any time to any new development that will come. I oppose the rezoning. 3225. Not go and ask that you consider. And take into consideration. The displacement that is happening all around Colorado. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Benjamin Denning. Good evening. My name is Benjamin, darling. I live at 1027 26th Street in District nine. I have been a resident most of Denver for most of my 57 years. I've been in Denver long enough that I remember when we call, when we when around here the bears met baseball at Mile High Stadium. The Rockies met hockey at McNichols Sports Arena. And the basketball was red, white and blue at the auditorium arena. It looks like we are building a city for people that don't live here. And we've been here for a long time. Luxury apartments again. 87% of the renters in Denver make $35,000 a year or less so at 60% AMI, which is only a portion of this particular project. Those folks are are rent burdened to start. Why aren't we building projects that meet 90% of what the ranchers in Denver make? How long are we going to allow developers to tell us what is affordable? Now let's consider wages. This is being built in a light industrial area. What they're promising is just a few jobs at the retail level. How do retail jobs pay in terms of wages compared to light industrial? Not very well. So you already have a depressed community that you're bringing in low paying jobs and high paying rents. That doesn't make any sense. You add into that? On December 26th, the federal moratorium on evictions ends now in Denver. City and county proper, we have some. As of December last year, 2019, we had 320,500 and some odd housing units. That's everything. That's people who own houses. That's people who are renting properties, were renting apartments and own townhomes and everything. Been reported in the news since the summer that we have 100,000 evictions waiting for us. That's almost a third of the properties that are about ready to be empty if this comes to pass. Now, how can real estate developers afford having a third of their properties empty and then being willing to build more? Well, one of the folks that was testifying earlier, it's not about the renters. It's about property value. 400% in the last however many years that was for property taxes. Easily a doubling of property values in the last ten years. They're just going to wait for the property value to double and then sell it. They don't care if anybody's there. And then we keep building stuff that people can't afford. You think there's a lot of homelessness on the streets right now? You just wait till after the first of the year when the eviction moratorium ends and they start processing those evictions. We haven't seen anything yet. Just more empty luxury apartments. I'll be available for questions. I have other data that I wasn't able to get to during the time. Thank you, Mr. Dunning. Next up, we have Ruben Sanchez. Good afternoon, counsel. Can everyone hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Reuben. All right. My name is Robinson Jones. I have lived in the area for about 17 years, and I have seen firsthand the constant changes occurring around us. I remember the way my old neighborhood used to thrive before the destruction of the neighborhood due to increasing construction and gentrification. I understand that change is always going to come, but I also know that we have the power to get to decide what gets changed and how it changes. I am speaking out against the zoning classification for 3225 ten Argo Street. The five point area has already changed so much, and allowing the change that the building can be raised to 16 storeys is nothing more than a gateway to more gentrification and terminating the ability for low income members of the community to afford living there. I believe that the Five Points area and other nearby low income neighborhoods of color shouldn't change so that more luxurious than high end living pushes out the people already there. The Denver area and neighborhoods surrounding the get of it. Like Globeville, Elyria and Swansea have already seen many of its deeply rooted people disappear because they can no longer afford the ever increasing cost of rent. We are tired of having to leave our homes and neighborhoods so that we can move to areas where we can only afford to survive. I oppose the zoning classification and don't believe that the height limit should be raised to 16 stories. Tall buildings belong downtown. Let five points be five points and leave the tall buildings of central downtown. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, we have Carrie Joy. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Kerry. I am a resident of Swansea in District nine. I am asking that you vote no on Bill 20 1159. The city of Denver through host is being negligent by going into negotiations in agreements with developers that focus on negotiation, negotiating profitability on behalf of the developer, instead of negotiating for affordability on behalf of Denver constituents who they are supposed to be representing. The fact that the voice of the developer was prioritized over the native community when the representative for this district asked to delay the public hearing is appalling. The city is the city is nothing without its people. The people that live here, the people that keep the lights on, quote unquote, that financially support you as public servants. And we implore you, listen to the people. We are already in the middle of a housing crisis. Use this zoning tool to prevent more homelessness. These are human beings. The gayest neighborhoods have the highest concentrations of family within the city of Denver. What about these children? Host implied. Host tried to imply that their strategy is solid by arguing that adjacent properties are being negotiated at different levels as far as affordability is concerned. They have failed them and CPD have failed to do an analysis on vulnerability to displacement, a clearly stated goal in COP Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver in the surrounding area. Any extraordinary ask for a rezone should be. Justified with an extraordinary. Benefits package to the surrounding communities. Similar developments and investments to this project have skyrocketed. The rent gap and. Property tax is more than. 500% in global area and Swansea has said since 2007 more than three times the grade. The the average of the city. Exacerbating historic racial health disparities near at 84% Latino community and in a historically black community that has experienced rapid gentrification through thoughtless zoning and as we see a shortfall in our city. We also see that the residents of this city, not necessarily the private the private donors, have been bearing the greatest burden, especially through proposed mill levies directly through property taxes or passed down to the renters. It is decisions like this that puts Denver on the map as the fastest gentrifying city in the country for Latinos. So as a city declared racism a public health issue, it is your responsibility in this moment to prioritize affordability and equitable planning. The well-being and stability of our neighborhoods matter and this and the well-being and stability is a part of our safety. So since this project seems to exacerbate the problem, I am completely opposed to this rezoning. Lastly, this is not a matter of supply and demand because our behaviors and priorities are what informed the market. But even if this was about supply and demand, I ask you recognize that the majority of people living in the city are demanding affordable, accessible housing, and I don't mean accessible to those applying it, supplying it. I mean accessible to those who are demanding it. That is true democracy and representation. We do not have a shortage in housing in Denver. There are over 20,000 vacant units in our city. What we have is a shortage in accessible housing in the city and what we see is a history of multiple. Times. Interest. We have before we have housing stock ladies, we are on Gonzalez perpetuating preventable displacement. Next up, we have Mercedes Gonzalez. And we're going to have translation services as well. The potassium. We have Mercedes Gonzales. You'll have to unmute. Methodists are not supporting us and more support of our okay to say them part of our. I said this. Okay. Maybe we'll try to get Mercedes on here in a second. We'll go ahead and go to our next speaker. Mr. Cummings, my question. Oh, there we go. Okay. Is the winner, not. Just the little man in Brazil, Consuelo. Good night. Two other members of the council. City Council. Mercedes Gonzalez. My name is Mercedes Gonzalez. I am part of the coalition of chiefs. Represent the global leaders once a year. I represent global Elyria and Swansea is billion. This up would look on to this. Are you. There? The I guess you say people. I am in disagreement with the development of of the market street. Ebola a combative me testimonial a is much a story upbeat always that book all the okay okay so trust me no those that the ample. And I'm going to share my testimony there's a lot of history but I realize I only have a limited time. Job portability Tristan Jones is the in being Juninho. In three in single puntos. For 23 years I lived in the five points area. With Espn+ Harbor. I see the business. I was displaced three years ago. It's soy madre. Yeah, abuela. I am a mother and a grandmother. That is huge. On the business. Of 18 grandchildren and great grandchildren. The letter said, Either. I am a woman of the Third Age. So let me for our media, for this plaza are different. This area is the last year that. All of my family was displaced to different areas of the city. In our demand service plus harbor we must is the mi esposo or nico ego. And the last ones of my family to be displaced was me and my husband and one of my sons. One of Guillermo's displays shadows job to illustrate the onset California three. When I was the last time I was displaced, I lived on 3011 California Street. If we're done. Really? Not. This is parenting. I was so desperate and it was so horrible. In a photo market. When was this this place that was. In the way we were evicted. We must attack those. These groups, these criminal, those. We were discriminated. We were discriminated again, discriminated against because of the language. And we were attacked. For 11 months. Because of our language. Welcome. Palabras of NC Boss Jaco Particle Bueno. There was an assault and with offensive language on behalf of the owner. Departamento and Marla's condition. And the apartment was in bad conditions. Albania, Libya, in Istanbul. The landlord, of course, lived in a different state. Now we see losses. In Asia. Kabul, the lose apartment. The the office of the apartments. They took care of the apartments, of the maintenance. And where did you go to redecorate. The when he came to live in Denver. Be no problem. So we no problem. That's when the problems began. L estava the sandals in the departamento? No departamento. He was there every day at the apartments. I go stand on those. Saltiness. Verbal stratus. Or mistreating us. People knows about Inglis. And because we didn't know English. Animals the Rachel Orcas and Serena Regulus forget almost. Mexicano. We had no rights for arrangements to be made because we were Mexicans. But I mean, with that almighty Santa. For me, it was very pragmatic. L knows there's a local community. He forced to forcibly evicted us. In focus this. In just a few days. Well, now, this aspiration can also be almost gave us a sore throat. It was such a desperate time that we did not know what was going to happen. We would did not know what would happen to us. Not just in the medium. We spend nights without sleep given. Most are sad, but I don't know, Ramos said. Where shall we go? What are we going to do? With caramels. He was caramels in Encontramos went in, slugger. We looked and we looked. And we could not find affordable rent. In their neighborhood. Mazara ra tanto de natal by rapport. There are deposits. Don't you rent them? How were we able to get so much money to pay for the deposit and the rent? I'm innocent, a.k.a. the Ebola Virus 43. And I say he would take us to court. An impact of what several. The impact was severe. It's not me. Of course. You know, SARLO meant that either proceeding. This caused in me mental health problems and depression. Yes. William Morris. Then there was Camille. We heard rumors of new changes. MP Rotem, you want those illegally stolen marijuana. But the situation got worse when marijuana got legalized. To go into the state. We saw people come in from other states. I saw it as Alta Vista. And there were is where the high rents began to take place. It is into. And the displacements. Our I think Tristan is maybe in influence. Yes. Now, I have three years living here and once you. Will come your drastic apparent me. And it was the drastic change for me. They had never seen that your Amistad is business. I left my old neighborhood, my friends, my neighbors. That's the time we have available. Thank you, Ms.. Gonzalez. Next up, we have Harmony Cummings. Harmony, you might have to unmute. Oh, it looks like you're still on mute, Harmony. We're not able to hear you. Harmony. We're going to. I'm not sure if Harmony can hear us here. So. I think we're going to go ahead and we'll go to our next speaker and see if we can get harmonies, auto, audio. Figure it out. We've got Tess Dougherty. Go ahead, Tess. Okay. Do you hear me? Oh, yep. Now we can. Hi. I'm test. Hi. And I live at 1801 chestnut place. I oppose this rezoning at 3225 DeNardo Street. And as a special education teacher in Denver, Public Schools at Colt Arts and Science Academy for five years, I stand in solidarity with the Cole and surrounding Five Points Globeville and Elyria, Swansea and neighborhoods and residents. As the city presented, the developer has voluntarily agreed and included in their zoning request beyond what is the minimum affordable housing required by the city, but with over a third of residents having trouble paying rent and that was in 2019. So that is well beyond now. What is considered affordable housing and how we define affordable housing and how we zoned for it needs to be. You know, we need to we need to we need to change that. I mean, how are we defining, affordable? And for who? For whom and and. And what you know, what the minimum requirements are in a in a housing crisis, in the midst of a pandemic, with people on the streets every night and being swept by the city, we have to change the minimum. That's that that's you know, we have to start at but in Denver we are in the top ten cities in the US for income to housing access disparity. And so, you know, I, I don't I don't use the word I don't use the term rhino to describe any neighborhood in Denver. Let's call it what it is. It's five points. It's the historically black neighborhood that helps shape this vitality, the vitality of the city. And until we have new zoning requirements for what constitutes affordable, we are not going to be able to solve this this crisis, according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that was updated on December 9th, 2020. The report looks at the average consumer expenditure in the areas of health care, personal insurance and pensions, food, transportation and housing. So I think it should be relevant here in all areas of average annual spending. Denver is above the national average, yet if we look at the average hourly wages provided in the same report for the most common occupations, we fall not even on par but below the national average. When we look at how Denver compares to the US average on on a weekly wage earner bolt on weekly wages, the US is 1188 on average, and in Denver is 1350, which is a difference of only one $162 per week. I don't think that $162 per week is going to make anyone that is experiencing housing displacement be able to afford the 60 or 80% that this development proposes as affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Katy Blakey and Harmony. If you want to log out and log back in, that might help your audio problems. And we're going to go ahead and go to Katie Blakey. Hello. My name is Katie Blakey. I live in District ten and work in District nine. I used to rent in Reno but moved to District ten because I could get a monthly mortgage payment that was cheaper than rent. Please vote no on this rezoning because as you saw from CPD's presentation and from previous speakers, community based organizations and residents strongly oppose this agreement. This rezoning will exacerbate gentrification in the area. All those who spoke against this rezoning before me said it much better than I ever could. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have David Hagan. Hi. Good evening. Can you hear. Me? Your name. In the spirit of white supremacy. And gentrification, I'll just say that I live. About a driver seven iron away from this property and I oppose this like everybody else has said, it seems ridiculous to me that we are using rules. The rules of the game are different than what is actual reality. The reality is. 80 and 60%. Is not enough for affordable housing. 49 units should be at 20% because the reality is something like 44% of Americans don't make more than $80,000 a year. I don't know what the percentages are here in Denver, but I'm sure they're probably right on par with that. So what are we doing for those 44% that can't afford to live at 60 and 80% or the 1300 or whatever I employed? And for the developer to rescind his request to go back and meet with the community and do something to help out the community and come back with a better plan, a plan that is equitable to all, not just the people with money, not just white people. That's all I have to say. Thank you. All right. Thank you, David. That concludes our speakers for tonight. Questions from members of Council on Bill 1159. Just questions or questions and comments. We're right now in the questions portion. And so we have Councilwoman Torres up. Thank you, Madam President. A. Libby I think my questions are probably for you, and I'm just trying to get to my notes. Is Libby still on? You should be. Absolutely. I'm still here. Okay. Thanks. Hi, Libby. So I'm curious about some of what I read in the Rhino plan. And the Rhino Plan was one of the plans that was brought up in terms of guidance. Right. Yes. That is the applicable malaria plan. Okay. So what I'm trying to understand a little bit more because it was pretty specific about how many units stand to be developed in that district. Do you have any sense of how many housing units have been built in? What is the Rhino District since this plan was adopted? I did allude to it in my presentation. See here. And I'm looking at for the plan, page 37 that says and just let me know if this is. Your recollection as well that there's market support for nearly 900 single family attached units and 675 multifamily units to the year 2022. Okay. So we're close to that at this point. In the 13 years since the narco market began developing, there's already been 980 apartments developed and 337 more are under construction. 337 are currently under construction. And then this would add 326. And then I'm not as familiar with what's proposed on the vacant land north of Delaney, but I believe that's looking at probably another 1000 units or so. Okay. And I'm not sure if you have this information, but I'm curious because the plan also alludes to this how and how much of that housing stock has been developed under 50%. Am I? So that could be host projects. Denver Housing Authority projects. And I'm. Just not familiar. With the district enough, so I'm trying to get a sense. Of. What affordability has been developed. And. And this is. I'm sorry. Who are you looking at? The entire area that falls within the Rainbow North Plan. Or are we just looking at it in our goal. Market? I am looking at. So it looks like this alludes to the entire. The entire area. I think it's looking largely at underutilized land area. But what it's telling me and this is page 70. Four of the plan. Let me get over there. Okay. So. This is referencing. Different opportunities. And I think it's looking largely at the Todd areas. But what it's talking about is. Under the section create a compact, mixed, used, pedestrian friendly. Todd Is this area fall within that TODD area. I just thought this plan. So this does not fall within your 40th employee of Todd districts. Okay. This is pretty much on the opposite side. And I think back then, that was referring to what would now be like 30th and Blake. But this is in that far southwest corner. Got it. We're looking at that. Actually, the plan does reference to narco market. And does it reference for dinner, though? Let me take a look here. What specific is in the Todd area? It does reference very specific affordability goals. Do you recall if the dinner go section referenced anything like that? I don't recall offhand, but it was. Fairly vague on just wanting to increase that intensity and mix of residential and commercial uses in the area. It also did not address how tall those buildings should be. Right. Okay. Okay. I'm finding it here. So in there, create a compact, mixed use. Pedestrian friendly development. It says encourage a mix of uses, including residential, retail and office uses. Provide a range of housing options, including workforce options in terms of site type and size, both sale and rental. Okay. So it doesn't have any metrics in the same way that the total area does. Okay. Have we tracked overall how many? Affordable units have been developed in the Reno area pursuant to the plan goals. We do not have those numbers. We did look around at some affordable housing agreements in the area. The nearest you to nahco market is in city gate. It's just kind of southeast across Brighton Boulevard and that has 25 units at 80% i. But we don't have a full analysis, you know, and the totally there are various developments that have been built over the last 10. To 15. Years that include a few units at a variety of levels. But. I don't think it's anything that's getting around 50% and there's been nothing so far developed and that's a narco market immediate area. Okay. Thank you so much, Libby. Those are all my questions for now, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for the great presentations, CPD and for all of our speakers who are here tonight. I have some questions for CPD and a couple for host and a couple for the applicant. And for a CPD after evaluating the criteria, you're recommending approval of this, but planning board also voted to approve it . But tonight we have another rezoning on the agenda that neither CPD nor the Planning Board are recommending. Can you please help explain how CPD decides whether or not to recommend a rezoning and what kind of way that recommendation carries? So first off, as far as how we recommend a rezoning that's analyzing again our four criteria with consistency with the plans and for the start up in front of me. Which we place a lot of weight on, especially with Blueprint Number and the comprehensive plan having been adopted just last year after extensive public input. And then we look at whether or not it will also be uniform with the district regulations of that new zone district that's being proposed. And then also considering the public health, safety and welfare and whether or not the proposal will further those the justifying circumstance, there are several that we can look at, but for this one, it came down to the fact that this neighborhood has already changed significantly and the comprehensive plan and blueprint number were adopted after this I.B. Zone district was in place. And then furthermore, we consider whether or not the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood context that is on the list of purpose and intent. And in this rezoning, we found that this did meet all of these criteria. I did not manage the other project that Sarah Carson will be presenting later tonight where we're recommending denial. But it did not meet the. Criteria for. Various reasons. So the fact that you are recommending that this does carry a lot of weight. I mean, in my five years on council, I've never seen one come to us that you didn't recommend, except for the one that's later this evening. So it does meet all of the criteria according to your evaluation of it. It does. And as I mentioned, we don't consider whether or not this project is perfect or might be better, but we try to be as objective as possible in comparing this with all of the applicable goals and strategies in those plans. And I do want to point out to you, because a lot of folks reference the number of goals and criteria in these plans, and we acknowledge that a particular zoning project isn't going to meet every single one of those goals and strategies, but we consider those that are most applicable, and a lot of them also fall upon the city's responsibility to implement. So it's not on the private sector to implement. Every single one of these goals and strategies. Thank you. I appreciate the analysis that you've done. So a couple more questions. Do any of Denver's plans call for this parcel to remain industrial? No. And what does Blueprint Denver recommend for this parcel? If you could remind us, please. The future place type for this is higher residential area where commercial uses are prevalent and buildings are generally the tallest of residential places and it falls within the urban center neighborhood context that again anticipates a high mix of uses good street activation and taller multi-story buildings. So using that criteria, that's how you came to support this particular rezoning. It just sounds like that's exactly what you're describing. And on slide ten of your presentation. It shows different heights and it shows this as 16 in there. Are all of those already rigzone on that slide 16. All of those are outlined within the dashed white line are being proposed as another project that's actually going to the planning board tomorrow night where they're signing some of the Chapter 59, as well as industrial zones in order to better specify what's allowed in these areas. And so if that's approved, that would also result in some taller buildings. Although it should be noted that the existing pads. Also envision some buildings around 200 feet. Tall. Okay. All right. That's all I have for you. And Madam President, I have a few more questions, if you don't mind. Thank you for hosting. I have a few questions. One of the speakers tonight referred to unmet promises made by developers to build affordable housing. Can you tell us about any agreements that developers have made that they did not follow through with? Uh. Hi there. This is Andrew Johnston from the Department of Post. There's. A lot of agreements that the city enters into with developers. I'm not aware of any off the top of my head that where a developer has failed to meet their obligations. Usually if they fail to meet their obligations. It's before the project's finished and we engage in a conversation with them. To rectify the situation. Is that what you're. Does that answer your question? Yes. Because someone. One of the speakers. Allege that that it's a common thing and I'm not aware of it. So I just was wondering if that is something that's happened. Deborah, did you have something to say about that? No, I just wanted to say. Not to my knowledge. And I also wanted to just mention that Andrew has been in this position for less than six months, and I'm coming up on a year. So to the extent that there is any any other projects that have occurred prior to our employment in host, we're not aware of them. We're happy to check and let you know. But I have not heard of any. Okay. And we recently just received the 2019 report from hosts. Can you please tell everyone who's watching how much was expended in 2019 on newer and preservation of units as well as support services in 2019? I know that in combined in 2018 and 19, I'd have to look to get a breakdown by year. But I know that as part of the housing and inclusive Denver, we've expanded $112 million creating units. And in those in that, we've created 2500. And 80 affordable units. And I can give you a little bit of a breakdown on the income levels that that were addressed through that, because we have actually 51% of what we have that what we have funded serve households at 30% and below of area median income, including a high percentage for homeless. I can go on if you want anything more specific. And in that category we've spent. A total of 86, about 57 million for households at 30% or below. Okay. Well, thank you. I just wanted to make the point that that the people of host are working very hard to create new housing units for people at all income levels and to preserve housing and to provide services for people in need. So I just wanted to make that point because I feel like a lot of people come to our council meetings and they don't think we're doing anything. But actually you are all are doing quite a lot. I also know that in 2020, in this extraordinary year we're having, you know, we're spending, you know, $15 million of carers dollars to help people experiencing homelessness and to try and get people into hotels and shelter. So contrary to what we might hear, you all are doing really tremendous work out there. So thank you. Okay, two more questions. Madam President, if you don't mind, I'm making up for the last few months when I've only said here and I . I have some questions for the applicant, Mr. Hill. I have a few questions for you. So you're agreeing to build 49 units of affordable housing that will remain affordable for 99 years. If you had not agreed to this under the current law that the Denver City Council passed a few years ago, how many units would you have to build? Oh, you're on mute. I apologize. Thank you, Councilwoman, for your question. We would be required to build zero affordable units within the project under current law. Instead, we would be required to pay an affordable linkage fee of $1.50 per square foot, which on this project would be about $600,000. Okay. Or you could build five units, right? Oh, yes. In lieu of linkage feed, you could build five units instead of the 49 year old. Correct. And how much will it cost you to build 49 units? Well, it's a great question, Councilman, because of the construction type, which is high rise, concrete and steel. These units cost us $400,000 per unit times 49 units. You're talking about $20 million of affordable housing that we're voluntarily building. So under the law, though, you'd only have to pick and read thousand dollars. $800,000? That's correct. Okay. And earlier this year there you brought a different project to us that council did not approve. How many units were in that project? How many affordable units were how many total units and affordable units were in that? Yes, Councilman, to be for your question. So that reason for shut down in May of this year was a 625 unit project also. That was 12 stories, also high rise, 625 units. We were proposing 63 or 10% affordable at 80%. And that was rejected 7 to 6 of the council. Okay. And my final question is, do you own the property now for this rezoning? No, ma'am, we do not. The current owner that operates the the distribution facility on the site is actually retiring and shutting down the facility, which is why he came to us. So so there will be no jobs remaining on site, whether we like it or not. Okay. But if you if this does not pass, are you still going to buy it? No, ma'am, we will. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. I have questions for Mr. Hill. She is still with us. And if you could save me some research, I don't have your materials up from the file. How many? Two bedroom. Apartment three. Are you building as part of this? A minimum of 20% of the of the affordable units will be two bedrooms. In total in the project. It's also 20%. So our our affordable unit mix is proportional to our market rate unit mix. The price will be 20%, two bedrooms across both market rate and affordable. And how how large are your two bedroom apartments? About 1200 square feet. Of 1200 square feet. And you said something about that. You had built 168 affordable units in. Where are those? Sure. Good question, Councilman. We have committed we've signed three host agreements today. The first one we signed about 18 months ago was at Colorado and Athens, near near the Colorado station light rail stop, just south of the Ford dealership. We're under construction on 360 units. 36 of those are affordable and merely adjacent to that. We have a second phase. It's 200 units. 20 of those will be affordable that we're committing to 49 affordable units here. And the remaining 63 to get the 168 was what we committed to and assigned to be reserved earlier this year, but was shot down. Okay. Thank you. The 10,000 square foot green space you talked about on this project is that one chunk of land that. Could be a Frisbee space. Or is this? How's that? What are we doing? Great question, Catherine. So we are adhering to not only the Denver Green Building Ordinance, but also the rhino design overlay. Those two things are the driving factors that are leading us to take the option to do 10,000 square feet of ground level, publicly accessible, private, green space. And it's a combination of additional setbacks along really a runway frontage, which is on the nado. So the right of design overlay requires additional setback of 40 feet. And then we're also providing a pocket park, if you will, about 5000 feet in a triangular shape at the southeast corner. Of this tank. And my let's see. Oh, why did you opt to build this without going for government tax credits? It's a great question, Kathleen. The primary reason is that a project of this size and scale for 2002 door, 300 units to $120 million project, the subsidies that are available to us in the form of tax credits and low interest loans are really not meaningful. It's very small dollars, unfortunately. We're building 20 million square feet of the housing with the 49 years. I believe the budget for affordable housing for 2020 dedicated to actually building for the housing is 30 million. So we clearly they can't give that all to us. So it's not usually material. It's also it slows down the process. We don't know what we're eligible for and we're not. And really, to be honest, because we're market rate developers, we are private market developers, we do not have experience building separate, affordable housing, tax, credit, housing. It's all inclusionary for rising. We do it. Okay. My last question. Just another. Detail. As I remember, you're building parking for, I believe, 360 cars. Is that correct? They're about? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam President. Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up next. Thank you, Madam President. Some of my questions have been asked, but I wanted to kind of hone in on some of the comments that have been made about the fact that there are 20,000 vacant units in the city. And I wanted to ask Deborah or someone from Host if you can verify that and identify how host is looking at those vacancies. I know that some of the rents have started to come down on market rate housing in our city and wondering is there some solution that the city is exploring to figure out how to access those units? Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Since I'm on the production side, I'm also on the preservation side, I should say, but I personally do not know how many units there are at this present time. I know that in the past we have worked with VHA to identify market rate units that were that we felt were being underutilized and created a whole program around that. It was not terribly successful, to be honest with you, and it didn't result in the people taking advantage of those units. That program that was started by Eric Sullivan. Yes. You're referring to. Yeah, I think it was called. Were those all just concentrated on downtown or did any of them look at, for example, some of the affordable units in Councilwoman Black's district? I think to my knowledge, I think it was everywhere. I think they were working to identify units everywhere, and they were working with employers to try to identify people to occupy those units. And there was a whole subsidy set up for two years and and everything, but it was not wildly, wildly tapped into. Okay. Thank you for addressing that. Certainly. I'm going to move on with my next question. And this is to actually partially it's true host, but it's it's really targeted to CPD and. Libby. I don't know if. Anybody else is on representing the upper management of Canada. But I want to know in. In the zoning process. What specifically is being done per the, you know, updated? You know, blueprint Denver plan. That that looks at how you will address zoning applications that are in neighborhoods that are already experiencing displacement. Do you just rely on hosts to play a role, or is there something more that you all do or are looking to do in the process? So let me give you an example. So when the Cedar Site was being looked at as a redevelopment site, I know Councilman Cashman played a big role in making sure that there was a very robust community engagement process that took months and months. Lots of meetings that took place at the school I attended several of them and staff from from CPD were involved in that process, you know, along with the developer who would bring updated details of what was being proposed at the site that required a rezoning. We've had lots of big parcels that have been resolved in the guests area, in the downtown area. You know, we've got a football stadium. We've got a number of big projects that are coming along, the 825 corridor. So some. How do you all sort of decide what that process looks like? Is it based on the size of the parcel? Is it based on the size of the development? Because some developments can be vertical and be as big as some projects that take up more, you know, landmass, but may have an equal or lesser number of of units on larger, larger parcels. So can you just give me an idea of how those are looked at? So first, the question is to CPD them to host in terms of the role you play in that process. So I'll take a stab at that. I haven't been with the city for that long, so I'll call on Kyle or Sara to augment my answer if I don't hit on some of it. But we have been more recently doing an equity analysis on sites that are five acres and bigger, where we look at a number of factors related to vulnerability to displacements, access to opportunity and increasing housing and employment opportunities and the rezoning that's going on in the rest of the Navajo Market, because that does cover close to 13 acres that walks through that entire equity analysis and categorizes where these sites fall within those three equity concepts. With these smaller sites. Since this one is one and a half acres, we have considered whether or not we should start doing that more of an equity analysis on this. But so far, we look at we look at the plans, we look at the maps, including the recently developed tracking vulnerability to displacement map, to get a general idea as to what's going on in the area. And quite frankly, five points is categorized as less vulnerable. Whereas gee, as an Elyria swamps, you are very vulnerable to displacement. The socioeconomic factors within five points are quite a bit different. Okay. And then I want to focus for just a minute on open space. So when you look at the de narco market property, the entirety of what made up the narco market area. How did CPB decide that? Instead of looking at the area in its entirety and trying to figure out how much open space was needed in general, CPD allowed it to be piecemeal in terms of the development. And that, I think, really did a disservice to the amount of open space that we would have otherwise been able to see developed on the site. I don't know that. I don't know Kyle or Sarah. Either one of you could speak to that. And this isn't this isn't isolated to this property. We've been seeing this happen with some of the other larger sized developments where, you know, their master planned, but yet they are allowed to be sort of piecemeal in terms of the rezonings that happen. They come at different times. It's not like one massive rezoning that looks at, you know, different scales in different locations. They're all sort of piecemeal. I think this lone flake property was an example of of where some of that happened. It didn't all get resolved all at once. So I'm just curious how you all are making those judgment calls where by doing it that way, I think we're shortchanging how we address the need and the demand for open space in our city as well. Sure I can speak to that. Evening, sir. Hi, Sarah. Yeah. So, you know, it's I can't speak as much as some of the things that have happened in the past, but currently it's one of the reasons why we have the large development review and ADR process is so for larger redevelopment areas, we can have a conversation around whether there is a minimum requirement for open space for sites that are five acre or larger to have at least 10%. So no matter what, that's going to apply to the large site. But then we can also talk about whether there are some qualitative aspects we want to add on beyond just quantity or even additional quantity for for large areas for this area. As would be noted, there is a general development plan which was our, our older flavor of doing LDR. Now you have these larger sites where you need to coordinate development that would specifically look at open space. And when you see that rezoning that's been mentioned a couple of times now that's associated with that, you'll see that open space has been one of the major components that we're coordinating there. But for this particular site, it's small enough that it didn't trigger any of those bigger conversations. Okay. Thank you. I had one other question that I wanted to ask, and I think what I'll do is allow my colleagues I see we've got some others that are are plugged in. And so maybe I'll just get back in the queue as a president if nobody else ever asks that question. All right. Sounds good. Councilman Ortega, thank you. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam Prince. I want to follow up on the on Councilwoman Ortega's conversation a little bit, because I sometimes my observation is that if we build more density, we increase displacement and gentrification, but if we don't build any density, we also increase displacement and gentrification. So it's like, what do you do? Everything you do makes seems to make the problem worse. But when I look at this site, Libby and maybe Sara also and also Deborah. I look at this site and I'm looking at the map right now. It is completely isolated from Globeville. You can't get there from here sort of thing. You got the river. You got the Burlington Northern Yard. The massive railroad yard. You got the Park Avenue Viaduct, I-25 in some places and into the south, even to get to five points. Although this is in the five points neighborhood, you can't get to five points. It's about a mile and a half away. It's over under the Broadway subway. You got to cross the U.P. and the RTD main lines for the A-line. And it's in an area that's completely industrial. So we're displacing no one here. And so I'm having trouble understanding the theory that adding density here will cause displacement in Globeville or Elyria, Swansea that are so disconnected from this submarket. Can one of you explain? RC Actually, I know Irene Aguilar is in the audience too, so I don't know who would be best to answer that. Lydia, Do you want to take a crack at it first? Yeah. And this is, as you noted, certainly an island that is surrounded by a lot of barriers where those impacts to displacement may not be direct. But I think that there's a fear that by creating more of these high end apartment homes, the the median income value of five points is going to go up. And that's going to create more pressure on Globeville and Elyria. Swansea, where they're concerned that their property taxes might increase, their property values might increase, and eventually they won't be able to afford their own homes. Mm hmm. Okay. I see Senator Aguilar has come in. Kyle Dalton's face just popped up on my screen to a kind of someone to help me understand this. Got everybody here for you? Somebody help me understand this. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Argument for displacement. Irene. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Members of council. So let me address as I think the the biggest concern here, which is that when you build upscale housing, there is sort of a trickle out effect on pricing. And there are some recent studies that show that you can see that happen. I think the other thing that is that the community is concerned about here is whether the return on jobs is the same as what potentially could be held. And that's looking at it from an economic prosperity point of view. I think the broader thing that most I shouldn't say this, I don't know what people who testified here today are thinking about. But one broader question that this always brings is that there isn't that much undeveloped land in Denver. And in some ways it's just an opportunity lost in terms of where could you put affordable housing in Denver? But I think based on what we have right now in our zoning code and ordinances, this is actually a pretty good deal, is the best we could get based on our current law in the city. And so I think that addresses sort of where the concerns come from. Okay. Thank you. I don't know, Sara, Deborah, Kyle, anyone else have anything to contribute to that answer that is that pretty much covered? The only thing that I would say about this project is and it's proximity to to to Globeville and to downtown is, you know, it's on the edge. I mean, we look at it as an opportunity to house people who work downtown so, you know, minimize their their travel and, you know, the need for vehicles. And, you know, you can walk everywhere downtown. But there are so many places where people work downtown, but they can't live anywhere close by. So that was kind of our approach. And we're we're. Anticipating that through the development. And I don't remember if she said this or not. There are lots of jobs that are that are created through the construction and then into even the operation of the property. You know, I can't speak to what types of jobs those are, but those are some of the way that that we approach this. Okay. Thank you, Deborah. Libby I'm flipping through the slides from the presentation. This area, the growth area strategy here is that this will supply 15% of new housing growth in the city and 5% of new employment in this future growth area. Is that I read that correctly. Correct. So how does eliminating the industrial zoning, how does that contribute or damage the prospects for a 5% increase in employment? That. And I can't say specifically how many jobs this site would add and how that is kind of dispersed across this entire growth area that applies to the entire city. But I'd say more so it's driving up the amount of people who can live in this area as well that could provide employees to future jobs. And then also, it's not just about this site as well with that vacant land that's northeast of Tanaka and Del Gagne. If that's free zone, that actually anticipates significant more commercial developments than what would be at this site, the 5800 square feet of commercial space. At this one, the applicant anticipates providing maybe seven jobs. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, there used to be a lot of jobs down here. I think the family of one of my kid's grade school teachers had one of those produce outlets down there for many, many years in. The old narco market. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Came in on refrigerated train cars, things like that. Last question, Libby, I guess, for you is what's being proposed here seems to fit exactly with all the planning that's been put in place. Right. It's high residential. That's it's it's it's mixed use that fits. And it seems to me that a lot of people who have testified here, actually their argument is with the plans that have been put in place over the years. And I'm wondering if you could opine on that for a second, that what is what what we're really arguing for here is to redo the plans to take out this kind of high density, because when we've spent, you know, Blueprint Comp, Plan River North and we've planned for this, when the opportunity comes along, we have people saying we don't want it. So please applying for me on that. What are your thoughts? And in other words, are we arguing more to redo the plans and lower the projected density? Or. Or is there a way to argue that this does not meet the criteria? Because what you've presented seems pretty clear that it does. And I appreciate that. And like I said, we try to be as objective as possible when we're looking at comparing any rezoning requests with these plans. And does it fit or doesn't it fit? And so I certainly believe that my analysis leads to this does fit the plans. It does meet the consistency criteria. Now, what. About in other words, it fits. But a substantial number of people are arguing that they don't want it. Right. Right. And I don't know if that means that we need to go back when there was that few years of extensive public input put into these plans. But obviously. That. You're not going to please everybody everywhere either, right? Yes. All right. Deborah and Kyle, people are. Madam President, can I ask if any of the other planners or Deborah have a comment on that? Sarah. Sarah. Thank you. I just wanted to speak very, very briefly to the alignment of the affordable housing goals from the from the city perspective. And Mr. Hill spoke to what he would pay from a linkage fee. And we know that that linkage fee ordinance in that ordinance, it requires 80% area median income housing. So, you know, this one, they reached a little deeper and and hit the 60% mark. Which which is great. Would we want deeper? Absolutely. But it but it is difficult from an economic feasibility perspective to achieve that. I know that they did make an offer to reach deeper all the way down to 30%, but of course, that results in fewer units. So but this does me what is required in the ordinance. Thank you. In other words, we could ask for 20%, 30%, 50%. But it couldn't be built. Through. Without. Without a lot of your money. Yeah. And I guess I would speak to that as well. Is that the money that we earn through the linkage fee and through property tax and all of the sources that have come together to create our funding, our funding sources, is that. Those funds are then used for the affordable housing developers who focus all of their attention on creating 100% of affordable housing. So we do not have funds to subsidize the market rate developers might see. And as they do, that's why we call it voluntary. Right now. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple questions, so I have a couple of questions for CPB. We were talking about our large development review process and our ADR. And we've had these conversations about five acres, whether that should be the trigger or not. Yet. There has been some discussions throughout the city and on planning board. If five acres is the actual correct criteria because we're talking about putting like five acres would meet a certain criteria, but rezoning from industrial three storey zoning to 16 storey zoning. Actually puts more strain on some infrastructure than the Audi process does. So my question about the Audi process. There's more. I know. Mr. Hill has been here for several reasons, and some of them are contiguous. They've just broken up. My personal. My personal. Why do we allow that? Why do we allow his former rezoning in the spring with next to this site? It was the it was the storage unit. How do we allow that? I mean, are we monitoring that? Even though, yes, they're separate parcels and he would want to read them them separately. Are we sure we're not? How what would a trigger look like so that we could have them actually go through the process together? That makes sense. You pick an input. I'm thrown down. It does make sense and I haven't worked on the LDR process and I don't know why Hill and his teammates have opted to purchase these kind of one by one. I think he could either speak to that or Kyle or Sara too, if you want to provide a little bit more context as to sort of that where that five acre threshold came from for LDR and whether or not there is a way that we could encourage developers to come to us more proactively with a longer term vision in their areas to do that equity analysis. I can I can start and then I Disney record Africa is going to jump in there but to hear a little bit more about their approach here and Kyle please jump in because actually did a lot of the work around creating our new reality, our process. If I get something wrong, please speak up. But yeah, you're you're definitely right, Councilwoman, that we've heard concerns about how do you get the right trigger for when you should be having these conversations about what's coordinated the developments area and we're certainly open to suggestions there. There are all kinds of ways that you can try to identify trigger for example, like if you have enough of a change in intensity or land use, for example, then perhaps that's enough. So it's not just about it could not be about the size at all. That's your point about a change significant enough from something like industrial to allowing a bunch of residential? So I think we're definitely open to having those conversations and learning from there really hasn't been that long that we've had the LDR process in place now. So learning from it and looking for ways to reevaluate the triggers, we certainly, wherever we can encourage, try to look for these connections ourselves and encourage applicants to think about things comprehensively and not go side by side. But right now, under our current rules, there's nothing that precludes this applicant from from doing it that way. So I do think it'd probably be good to give up a chance to, to talk maybe a little bit about how your approach here. You bet they do, Sarah. And then your councilwoman cannonball to your question. So we have done a number of reasons recently. Let me just go through each quickly to clarify. So the two phase deal that we did agree, agreement with hosts in Colorado and Evans or Evans not to five, but four. That was five and a quarter acres over the threshold. We actually did a good neighbor agreement and a development agreement with the city whereby we committed to more open space, a 20,000 square foot pocket park and a total of 32,000 square feet of publicly accessible private open space that was above and beyond what the LDR process required . And we did that voluntarily. Then D.A. got a three or four rezoning. There was a period a few months ago where it was kind of a lot like an adjustment and a cleanup. Those two parcels together represented the exact same time and it was still below the five acre threshold. So those were simultaneous free zones. But this this free zone and the one adjacent that was denied it back in March. You're right, those were two separate reasons. The reason for that is we tied up the first site, started the new zone process for 6 to 9 months into that process when this current owner approached us and said, you know, basically you're buying our neighbor, we'd be interested in selling as well. So we had a separate process, 6 to 9 months behind with two different owners. But one one more thing to point out, we were the original buyer and the master developer that's in our market area. So we did do and what the new developer has to do it and also show us there is an application coming up. They still have to do the river activation and public open space along the river that we committed to back in 2007. So that green space will be part of their development but benefit all those around, including us. And then our green space here. The 10,000 square feet that runs along the Navajo is a continuation of that green space that goes all the way down to the river. Yep. All right, so I. I understand. And thank you for that answer. I understand. But I still don't understand how, even though they're nine months apart, when I'm thinking about land use, I'm thinking about seven generations. I'm not thinking about nine months. Nine months is a drop in the hat, with all due respect. So the fact that these two parcels together could have gone to an Aldi ah process. It means a lot to me. It really does. It just you just get different outcomes when you go through more of a public process. So my next question is when you. Is there a way that maybe this could be for hosted applicants? It says in the packet, I can't see anything where the development agreement is signed. Is it signed or. Everything that I've read says it will be signed. I don't understand. It will be signed. Is it signed or is it not signed? I mean, this is Andrew from Host. And the if you're talking about the voluntary affordable housing agreement, it has been executed by the developer. So we do have that agreement executed by the developer pending a positive outcome tonight vowed and we would complete the city side signature to complete the execution. And then did they get recorded on the title? It does get recorded against the land. Yes. Okay. So if they sold, it would still run concurrent with the land? Correct. Correct. Okay. So I have a couple more questions. Thank you. Oh. Did you have a couple more questions yet? Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. No, that's. Okay. My family will keep my version working for you. Yeah, well, you gotta. You gotta be careful. Oh, sorry about that. So. One other question. So there was a comment made earlier by one of my colleagues that says this site couldn't be developed if you had 50% affordable. And I just want to know, in your opinion, to the applicant and now I know, I understand I absolutely understand that I may be asking questions that are not relevant to the criteria, but I do feel it is our job at City Council to ask questions that are get around a well-rounded idea of the proposal in front of us. So although some of my questions may not pertain directly to the five criteria we are asking we are required to vote on, this is our only opportunity as council members to ask questions. So with that, Mr. Hill, have you is it your. Business. Two. Do you are you a land long term landholder? So oftentimes I'll give you a reframe my question. Often times developers come into neighborhoods, they buy the property, they resell them, they build them, and then they sell them to for profit entities and they sell them off. Do you do that or are you a long term landholder? What's the longest one long term land that you've held? Yes. Great question, Councilman Sandoval. Typically, we stretch for investments for ten plus years. So this is a ten year investment. Could be longer, but we go into this for ten years. There are some comments made by some figures that we're out of town. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I live a mile from the park. Well, I walk my two year old down river. So this is close to home for me. It's a ten year investment. Long term is all relative, and that might not seem to matter to some. And it does for others. But this is on a ten plus year investment. It'll take that long to get through the multiple phase redesign. And keep in mind, the original investment goes back to 2007 and we're still active building across the street today, 13 years later. So I would consider us long term. Yes. And I think you had a question about the amount of affordability or not. I don't want to miss your question. So there was a comment saying that you couldn't be it you wouldn't there wouldn't be a project if you had to do deeper affordability. And I can say my my comment for my comment question, but I believe there is a way to do more, deeper, more affordability. It just means you don't make as much profit for people first. You put people over profit. So is that accurate or not? It's it's all like a business, like. Right. My family's in the family making business. We have to sell them for a certain amount to make profit. So but you are in the business of building buildings and making a profit, correct? Yes, I'm in the for profit business. It's not it's not a nonprofit, but it's a great question. Councilman, thank you for asking. At the end of the day, we do have to raise capital for the city to get it built. We have to raise debt financing from a lender that expects their money back, plus interest as well as equity. And those equity investors want a better return to the lender for the additional risk that they're taking. So the capital markets in this environment for urban infill are very challenging. It's very hard to raise revenue of capital right now. So it's not a matter of making less money. It's getting the project off the ground. If you can't build it, there's no money to be made. And we push this to the absolute brink of financial viability and economic feasibility. It's unfortunate that because it's highrise, they cost 40,000 to build. So it's 20 million, but that's the reality of it. I would also point out it's just a small parcel which just over an acre and it's a triangle, so you kind of have to lop off the corners and then you got 10,000 square feet of open green space and you have less than an acre of usable land. So, you know, I agree completely recognize that there is a need for deeper affordability, more of it across this entire metro. But we feel it's a good contribution to the city's affordable housing needs. And we hope this leads directly to others in the area doing similar where we see we could soon see hundreds of units available to states in minus meter. Okay. One last question. Do you feel that COVID has changed your profit margin, like your performance? Is that what you said, a comment earlier when you were answering this question and you said that it stretched? Do you do you feel that because COVID has I believe COVID has impacted all of us. None of us have been not impacted. Has it impacted your profitability or your performance in these type of projects? Absolutely. Without a doubt. Metroliner down by 10% and your reports are down. More occupancies around the common earlier, about 20,000 available units. I think that's right. And the way I'm getting there is that current vacancy in Denver across the entire city is 7%. There's 250,000 apartments in Denver. 7% of 250 is 17,500. So I think we do have those 20,000 vacant units. So, yes, profit margins are down, rents are down, occupancy were down. And that's all the more reason that it's going to be very challenging to capitalize this project. We're hopeful we can do it, but I know that by pledging 50% affordable to 30 to 50% am I, as was requested by the U.S. coalition, unfortunately, I would not be able to do that to build that project. The capital markets are not there for that depth and that amount of affordability. Especially for. The youth. Think of then president. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Can you move over, Erika Reiter? No, let me go. And Alfonso Espino. Yep. We should go ahead. This first question is for Erica writer. Erica, can you tell me what the impact your perception of the impact of these decisions on single parent families and their kids about what is affordable? Uh oh. I'm going to let. My daughter, who has been. Waiting for hours to stay, her piece about how this kind of project would affect a family like ours. My name is Mays Ramirez. My name is Mae Ramirez, and I'm eight years old. I am against the zoning. I want my leaders to care more about people, not buildings. What happened to the homeless people who were made to leave? This is not how people should be treated. Kids are also leaders. Please vote no on this. We are all watching. We are all part of this community. Thank you. Okay. Now for Nola. Nola, can you talk a little bit about equitable, equitable development and what you believe is needed in this neighborhood from developers and perhaps what you asked for from this developer and where there was an inability to. Come to some agreement. Sure. I think one thing, if it's okay, if starting with this is that what we've been missing out of this entire analysis and conversation is an is an actual look at what is happening with displacement. And unfortunately, we don't have that analysis. You all don't have that analysis to look at. But there should be measurements that look at both the data points of vulnerability, like we mentioned, but also even at the change over time when you have extreme amounts of change and this is something that other cities are using, I sent host of Income Risk Index that they're using in L.A. and that's the type of thing that you could look at, where you would both the extreme changes that are happening in particular areas like these, and also points of vulnerability, like the amount of renters and the amount of rent burden in those incidents. So I just wanted to say that because what those types of what that type of analysis could do is look at the all of the changes that are happening in the area. Right. So so guess in specific in some ways that it doesn't have protected affordable housing. So we have very, very little protected affordable housing. You know, we have three units in the field. Those are affordable housing that's protected to put deed restricted, affordable housing. We have very little of there are some scattered sites. There's some habitat units where they could repurchase the homes. But there's very, very little deed, restricted affordable housing, which means that everything is vulnerable. All all the people's homes, the residential. Homes. Are vulnerable. And we know that nine out of ten of our neighbors are at risk of displacement. And I would say during the pandemic. It's it's everyone and every single person that we talked to, our most recent survey was rent burden. And 89% of those people were heavily rent burdened, meaning they're paying over 50% of their income on rent, which is an impact major impact health. But getting back to what some maybe equitable things that could be done with the developer, with a private developer or an affordable housing developer could be things like income sharing. One thing that we talked about was ongoing a way to ongoing share that income of. The project with. The neighborhood. That was something that they weren't willing to look into more. They offered us a $5,000 contribution defense fund. That just wasn't. Enough. And we know that to address the impacts that are happening. All right. What about community land trust? Where part of the land. And that also wasn't an option we brought up in in our last meeting. Again, did not have extensive conversations. We didn't have the time to do that. But on a per market, a per market unit impact fee, we again didn't get there with that once. What about working with affordable housing developers, bringing in the types of partners that can acquire? And as as. Mr. Hill already said, that this wasn't a possibility for this for this project. I could talk more, if you want me to, about the protections that could be put in place by the city and so on. But oh, okay. Can you actually speak to a couple of comments that were made? One comment was about the fact that this is a pretty isolated area, although it's been highly developed over the last few years. I think it's important to have a community perspective about how displacement is impacted or facilitated, even in areas where there is development of space that is not actually physically taking anybody's house away. So can you talk a little bit about that one? Do I mean to talk to or I'll get you another. How does displacement happen if they're not actually taking houses away from anybody? So there's a something called price shadowing, which is when an area starts to feel the impacts of other developments, because not only does that development then brings more attention and demand in that area, but you start to see the impact to property valuation overall, which, as I said, 470%, we're already having huge amounts of change in that area and just we just can't take any more right now. There's so many pressures from so many angles and a 16 story rezoning just isn't what what needs to happen right now. But looking at not only the property value changing, the rent burden going up, you know, every every rental that you see is going to be, you know, in proximity to Reno, you know, like that that dynamic that is is a huge part of what's raising prices. And how about the comment that was made that, you know, there's really it's not really possible to do over 20% affordable housing in in a build like this. Can you talk a little bit about that and what you know about what is possible? Well, I would say that that's not possible potentially in a 16 story building. Because of the type of construction cost that that James was describing. So in my opinion, a smaller four or five storey zoning would facilitate affordable housing better. But, you know, we've worked with a lot of different types of developers. We've had some really exciting and creative conversations with. Helpers. That are happening that are interested in in community land trusts, in strategies, in impact, investing in different ways to try to figure this out, because we need that deeper affordability and we need ongoing ways to build the economy in in the areas that have been historically disinvested. Thank you, Nola. You might want to stand by, but that's it for my questions to you right now. My next questions are for CPD. The Rhino Plan doesn't actually call for this tall of a building. Can you explain how we got to 16 stories? Right. As I mentioned, the run up plan did not specify the building height ranges that should be allowed in here. They did allude to the design standards and guidelines, but those actually applied just across the street from the nahco. And so then we had to look at our most recent guidance within Blueprint Denver, and that's where it calls for among the highest, tallest residential buildings within this future place. Type and context. And so we we have we're not actually measuring this against the Rhino plan. It's somehow out of the boundaries of the Rhino plan. Is that accurate or. When you say across the standards don't apply until across the street? What do you mean? So let me clarify. This site absolutely does fall within the Rhino North neighborhood plan, but that didn't provide any guidance. And so it alluded to the rhino urban design standards and guidelines. But those don't. Those don't impact this exact site, but impact pretty much everything else in the narco markets to the east. And so why would that have been left out of the plan? Is that an oversight or what was that about? I don't know. Considering the plan was developed in 2003, I'm not sure why they left it that open. And so with the parts of the plan that do specify a building height, what is the tallest building height mentioned in the Rhino Plan? Specifically to do Argo market. As I mentioned, it is not anywhere in the regular plan. I would have to look at the final plan. In order to find those other. Mentions of heights. In other areas outside of the narco market. Do you know of any other single building in the Reno area? That is 16 stories today? No. And can you explain to me how far outside of the 38th and Blake affordability overlay are we with the normal market? I do not know specifically. I just know that that that in terms of hate overlay does not apply to this site. Do you know why? It just fell outside of the radius when that plan was developed. And how far is this from the 38th and Blake Station? Let me pull. Up a. Map. Although I can say earlier from my report, we're about three quarters of a mile from the station itself. Right. So less than a mile away from the 38th and Blake Station where we designed an entire affordability overlay incentive to capitalize on TOD. Not a single building that is 16 stories in the entire Reno area. The closest tall building is on the other side of the tracks in Union Station. Can you tell me about the. The building height for the river along the river in the rhino plan. What are the building heights allowed in the plan? Along the river. And which stretch of the river on the Arkansas side. And so with the narco market itself, since that's largely where my analysis was limited to the buildings along there are allowed to be only eight stories tall. And. When you. So Councilman Flynn spoke to the building form and said this matches perfectly with the rhino plan. Even though the Rhino Plan building heights are not specified for this building, that would be the tallest building, double the height of the max building in all of Rhino. When he said that it complies even with one criterion of the five we're supposed to be considering tonight while it actually doesn't. Do these rezonings have to meet all five of the criteria or just one criteria? They absolutely have to meet all five of the criteria. And I don't think that Flynn was alluding to the River North Plan so much as that this meets the Blueprint Denver guidance regarding the future context, future place type and growth area strategy. I get that. But he was more alluding to criterion two and five, almost as if those were the only criterion that mattered. And it's very strange that we don't have building heights for a development that is on the river. But I'll move on to my next piece. Can you tell me how CPD defines public health, public safety and welfare? And it can be fairly broad in interpretation for this. We focused on the fact that this is adding sidewalks in an area that currently doesn't have them. It's adding trees. It's adding streetlights. That would create a more safe, walkable environment. It's also introducing affordable housing to the area, commercial space and jobs that will create more of a mix of uses in the neighborhood. And it's complying with the green building ordinance that will add 5% greater energy efficiency than the building code requires. And then we often rely and tie that back to the fact that it's implementing adopted plans and is. Associated with. Various health goals within those plans. And so how do you also define community benefits in CPD? Those we don't necessarily define because we're not in charge of. Managing or implementing any kinds of community benefits agreements. That's something that is solely between developers and the communities and executed between those parties. But we recently did pass two area plans on East, Central and East Area that highlighted community benefits as a prerequisite for of zoning. But we don't define them in CPD, is that correct? And I am not as familiar with those neighborhood plans and haven't had the opportunity to apply them to a rezoning. So if they're included in those, then that's a step forward in the right direction for how we can help get those types of benefits with future rezonings. But CPD does not have a definition of community health, safety, welfare or benefits. If Kyler Sarah, if there's a spot that I'm missing here where we have a specific definition, please chime in. I'm happy to try to jump in here. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. Thanks for the question. We're tasked with reviewing an application, determining if it meets what's. Required in the code language that Libby's outlined, as is the code language that applies. So I think Libby has accurately identified what we heard from the applicants and what we identified as why this application meets those criteria in the circumstance. So public health, safety and welfare here is sidewalks, trees, street lights, commercial space housing and 49 affordable housing units. And I think Libby also mentioned its consistency with the adopted plans. But not the plan of the area that it's in, which is the Rhino plan. Again, we review the application against the review criteria and we found it was consistent with the review North. Thank you. Can I get a host for my next questions? Mm hmm. They should already be on. Host What are the current gaps in affordable housing in Denver? Like, what brackets of am I? Are we missing? And to what degree? Well, I would direct everybody to the Department of Hosts dashboard, which gives you lots of detail. But I will say that the greatest need excuse me is that the 30% and below area, median income level, and that's where we devote most of our resources. And specifically in our neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement. What is the bracket that's most needed in those neighborhoods? Well, I would imagine that it would be the same. I mean, you know, under 30% area median income. Is anything. What. What is the amount of units that we need citywide in those and my brackets. Hang on. Have a sec. And I don't have those. Memorize. I'm pulling up our dashboard so tight with me for just a moment. While you pull that up, maybe you can answer this one. Was the community contacted during the negotiations with the developer so that host can understand the need of the neighborhood? Yeah. Well, we one of the very first questions that we always ask the developer is if they've made contact with the neighborhood. Like the community. But a host. I'm sorry. But does host reach out to the community to discuss their needs with them directly before negotiating with the developer? No, that's not part of of what we are we are charged to do. That is the developer's responsibility. So we encourage the developer to do that and we encourage the community to they they need to have a two way conversation. That's where community benefit agreements are created. We're really not a party to those, but we just require that they do engage the community and have a meaningful conversation. Does host recognize that there's a fundamental power imbalance in those kinds of negotiations? Yes. I you know, we do recognize that. And by not engaging the community or acting in accordance with what the community needs, is that equitable? Well, it depends on how you're defining, equitable if you're talking about just one particular area. But, you know, I would remind you that we are charged with providing equitable equity across all of Denver. So we have to focus on opportunities that are in all of the different neighborhoods. And so when we're looking at those lower income populations, yes, we do. We do consider that we are looking for, you know, as deep affordability that we can achieve through those discussions. But we cannot mandate we I want to remind you that we cannot mandate what developers do. We can encourage. We can negotiate. But but we cannot mandate. But does host have to accept the voluntary units that are offered with your recommendation for a rezoning? Do we have to accept what they what they what they offer? No, we don't have to accept it. However, without an affordable housing agreement in place, the project would not be without agreement. In principle, it cannot advance to the planning board without a signed agreement in place. It does not advance here to council. So a signed agreement is essentially an endorsement from host. It is an acknowledgment that we have agreed to the ability that we think can be achieved through this project. But not that host has actually engaged with the community or met community need. You know, that's not that's not with as I said, it's not within our purview to. We can't we can't mediate the negotiation with the with the community. We can't we can't mandate what the developer is doing as a result of what the community is requesting. We can only negotiate with what we can do within the parameters of what the ordinance requires and try to encourage that to be as low as possible so that it does meet the community needs. And so what does inform your understanding of community needs when you guys are negotiating on behalf of a community? I mean, there there are community. There's data on the community. And let me I did pick up. Let me see if I get it. The units. Before I go there, I just want to make sure I don't forget this part. The percentage of households that are cost burdened in the 0 to 30%, which includes homeless, is 86%. And that that's 2019 figures. So the number of units that that represented in 2018 was 38,000 all households, 44,000. And that's just in that area that that median income bracket. So in all households in in Denver, there are 167 households with 105 Casper and we have about 24,000 units that are income restricted with. Looks like about 2000 of those meeting meeting that need we have to chip in to chip away at it a little bit at a time. So that's a good start. Add an analysis. Have you all as host done an analysis of the impact to involuntary displacement of this development? I have not. I understand that. What is your understanding of the potential indirect? Impacts, negative impacts of this development. Well, what everybody has spoken to today, you know, but there are you know, there are economic impacts. I mean, any development that occurs, not just this one, is going to have an economic impact in to to the neighborhood. It also has the economic input impact to two elevators in Denver just as a city. So it depends on on where you are in that continuum. But I would also remind you that that the city in host does focus our effort across that continuum. So while there is a huge need and we do devote, I think I said earlier, 58% of our resources toward the 30% and below area median income households. We do also have an obligation to hit the households better in the 31 to 80 and the homeownership as well. So we have to balance all of our resources and we have limited resources. So the way that those 30% units are achieved is through the affordable housing developments that occur using low income housing tax credits, because the way that those tax credits work is they bring in lots of free money. So those investors put money in upfront and they that's the way that the projects work. They have very little net. When you have very little debt, you can make really low in low rent. I just have one last question for you. Yes. Is this project meeting any of the gaps that we have in that 30% and my bracket? It is not because I believe that the the developer offered those, but they were insufficient for what your request was. Thank you. Can I speak to Chase now? Can you tell us, Chase, what the value is of this land with what is currently on it? You mean can you clarify the question of what the value is at 16 sort zoning or the value is as a vacant warehouse? How about both? I'm not I'm not in the business of valuing industrial real estate. But I think your point is that it's worth a fraction of what it would be worth, which seems to presume. And was there a real give and take with guys, coalition and or residents in this neighborhood? Yes. Thank you, Councilman. Great question. I'm glad you asked it. We included in your your package a letter that was issued on December 9th that outlines our communication goes back to May of this year. So for seven months, unfortunately, we could not find common ground. We tried, but the give and take was was very evident. So let me quickly walk you through how that went. So starting in May and looking at where we are now over countless Zoom calls, emails, etc., we increased and increased our affordable housing by 50% from 10% to 15%. We proposed the Community Benefits Agreement that, in addition to offering that affordable housing provided eight economic and non-economic concessions, that CBA is included in the package as well. So I won't we do that. We also explored deeper affordability because we were told 60 to 80 that nobody in the D.C. neighborhoods would qualify for this experience. So we we proposed 30 to 50% and it was only 21 units. It wasn't as much, but we offered 21 affordable units in the 30 to 50% range. And we came back a few years, as recently as two weeks ago and offered them 21 units of 32, 50 or 49 and 60 to 80, and they accepted neither one, unfortunately. And, you know, they had always kind of dug in on the 50% at 30 to 50. And then in our call last week was the first to progress away from that stance. And it was mentioned that 40% at the full range of amenities, which I assume means to the 90, would be something they would consider or I don't want to I don't want to speak for no other. You can kind of jump in. But another offer was, I believe, 20%, 30 to 50 plus profit share where we gave profits in the units to. For more affordable housing and obviously no as onerous. You can see for yourself that we unfortunately never came. Never found common ground as a bridge too far. And we just couldn't quite get there. So your offer did not change. Regardless of the options put on the table. No, that's respectfully, councilman. That's not what I said. We're all for change materially. 50 over 50%. So originally offered 10% affordable. We increased that 50% to 15%. We then offered 21 units at 30 to 50, Amy, which is the Amish range they requested. We then offered a CVA, so we did it and we did it. I don't think it's fair to say that we did not move off of our original stance and but they dug in until as recently as two weeks ago on the 50% at 3250. Amy And that's what we could not commit to. And so what made you go with the higher AMI bracket versus the deeper affordability for your final offer? Yeah, that's a great question. Gasol So you have to remember too that there's there were many different organizations in our lives that we were discussing this free zone with. So we reach out to 13 different RINO's and neighborhood educator organizations of the 13 eight engaged in that with us. Of those eight seven issued letters of support. So GSA is one of those eight. What we heard from the most is organizations, many of which spoke tonight was that they were focused on the amount of affordability. So they wanted 15% of a 16 story building because they got 49 units, whereas the GSA coalition was finding 5 to 8 story zoning, even if it meant 50 units or 80 units, and they might only get 12 affordable units. And there's no right or wrong. It's just a difference of opinion. But the other groups have supported us, one, and we're focused more on the aggregate amount and number of units. So 15% of a 16 story building is more than 50% of the five story building. And so we were focused on maximizing the amounts, hence the 15%. And that garnered a lot of support in the community outside. Yes. Are any of the other organizations that support the work involved in equitable development or the equity plan in the neighborhood? Gosh, the 13 hour news and neighborhoods issues. I can't tell you the mandates or mission statements of all 13, to be honest. I think you'd have to reach out to them individually or. Nola, can you speak to that? So I mean, I think evident in the amount of support for this project was that none of the people that wrote these letters actually came tonight. Most of the the so and is the only R.A. that's of the neighborhood and. They also had a lot of questions that I never saw answers to from the developer. And they had they actually wrote the letter for the previous reason and didn't engage in these conversations at all. They were really interested in benefits for garden place for the school, the elementary school, and Globeville. And I believe there was some sort of agreement about the pickleball court on the last and maybe a donation of some sort was made to the school. So that was that interest. Both the Business Association and I don't know who the other supporters were, but they have stayed very neutral. They don't want to be involved. And I've spoken to members of all of those organizations. That. Don't agree with that decision because a full, equitable analysis and process was not done. You know, it takes, you say, countless emails. Okay. But, you know, there weren't that many emails. How many emails do we do all the time? We actually had meetings and two meetings with you guys. I mean, that that's not an equitable process and we just touch the surface that the amount of people that have been involved in that process for the Reno Arts District was involved in the in the last meeting that that that consequence they sponsored. And, you know, they have a lot of questions as well. And I just don't think we're at the point through an actual, equitable, equitable process to get to the place where we're this is a good land use. Alfonso, my final two questions are for you. How would you, as a resident of this neighborhood, characterize or describe the negotiation process between the community and the developer? And do you believe that the asks of the community were unreasonable? Thank you, Councilwoman. So to the first question, as NOLA already said, there was actually only. To. A 1 to 1 an hour conversation that actually happened between the Coalition and our development committee, which is made up of residents and other neighborhood organizations. There's only two that actually ever happened. The rest of endless communication that Mr. Chase is willing to is simple email communication, which I'm sure anybody is used to and would not consider that an actual thorough conversation. It doesn't merit the word, and I think that's what it should have been. Well, it was something that was engaging us in a true way. As Mr. Hill has already said, we were always a bridge too far for them. Right. And I think part of the reason for that is because of negligence on the side of host who is currently taking a neutral stance by saying that they didn't engage in any conversations around what is the actual need in our community because they want the developer to do that. But if they came to that agreement, which they did before we ever engage in those conversations that they say they recommend, they were. Putting us in a very tough position that undermined any process that would have seen a positive outcome. So having to face that, you know, it's difficult to even call those two brief conversations that we actually had as very genuine, the nothing really ever moved. So yeah. And and real quick, is this the largest development, either Noella or Alfonso? You can you can respond. The largest development that you all have dealt with in your your work in the community. The the Clayton Street 4041 Clayton. Was is larger that was. 700 units. But as was testified, it's been sitting. There for years. Got it. Thank you. That's it for my questions. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank my colleagues for asking a lot of the questions that I had already. So and I want to thank all of our staff and all the people who have been here tonight. So great questions. Great answers. I want to ask maybe host just to get a little bit of context. The housing market took off in 2013. Am I right about that here? And that's before host was in existence as a as an entity. But was it about 2013 2014 and my when the ballpark at least. About 2012 it started improving in 2012. Okay. Before 2012, did Denver have an affordable housing crisis? Oh, yeah. Denver has always had an affordable housing crisis. Okay. So I mean, I started in. Amanda Sandoval, well, will attest that my very first nonprofit job was working for her mother and doing an inner city neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing. And that was that was a long time ago. So so we've had we've had an issue for a bit since the beginning of Denver, I suppose. Is there a city that we should be modeling? I mean, is there in the US? I know that there are different governments outside the US that make that model a little different, but is there a US city there that we should be modeling that that I should be doing a lot of research on to make sure that I understand how they're doing it right. We've actually just recently last year, I guess completed a peer cities study that and it's kind of all related to the linkage fee and, you know, zoning incentives and things like that. But we researched our consultants, researched numerous different municipalities across the country, settled on five, and some of them are similar to what we're doing. Some of them have affordable housing issues that are worse than ours, you know, like San Francisco, things like that. Places like that. I think we did a can't remember Pittsburgh or pencil are Philadelphia. I think we looked at it Austin and I'm forgetting the other two right now. But but yes, the answer is we are outreaching to that. I just finished a series of meetings this past week with poor cities across the nation, like numerous cities across the nation that are, you know, having dealing with affordable housing and trying to collaborate on solutions that work in one area another. So it's kind of like a roundtable discussion where we share ideas. So happy to get you the other cities and let you know a little bit about what what we've found. I don't I don't have them in my memory. So that's fine. But but there isn't a city in the US that has no affordable housing issue and is also a desirable city. Yeah, not. Not to my knowledge. Okay. The last question that I have is, should we be, if we're lucky, to get the Colorado General Assembly to change the Telluride decision? Is the city of Denver working now to determine what our how we might incorporate that change? Into our affordable housing strategy. We are. We have been having a discussions. We've got stakeholder stakeholders that we're meeting with. We put a temporary hold on a lot of those discussions, but for a variety of reasons, including COVID and and staff capacity, capacity as a result of COVID and things like that. But. But yeah, we have been working all of last year and it's a high priority for us in the coming year to address that. And yeah, if the news that I hear is that it sounds positive and what that, what that will, you know, it will result in legislation that will help us create a minimum standard for what we can ask developers for. I think we're the we as a city will have some work to do about figuring out exactly what all of the the details are to that. But yes, the answer to your question is yes, efforts are underway. Good. I'm happy to hear that, because while that may not directly impact this rezoning, why it sounds like Mr. Hill is interested in an additional development in the city, and so I and certainly the other developers. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Hines and Councilwoman Ortega. I want to check with you if it's okay. I'm going to go to Councilman Kinney. We haven't heard from her yet tonight. All right, Councilwoman Canete. Thanks, Madam President. To answer a question I wasn't asked, I've seen the best practice research on Inclusionary since I've been working on it for many, many years. There's not a city in America that has a policy that goes above 20%. Just to be clear, most are between ten and 15% because of economic feasibility. And so my questions are going to touch on that a little bit in a minute. But first, I want to give Deborah, who's just a moment, if she would like to correct something she said. Deborah, you mentioned that if there's not a build alternative agreement, the project doesn't get to keep going. It doesn't get to go to, as you know, the planning board or council. But that's not exactly what the law says. So I just want to be clear. If there's not a build agreement, then what happens under the law? True. And you probably have to supplement this, you know, with with my limited knowledge here, less than a year. But it does go and it's presented. But then the planning board, I believe, has to decide whether or not they want to advance it. And so that's yeah, that's I don't know if the staff wants to speak to it. The law allows developers to pay a fee. That's the short story. Oh, yeah. I just want to be really clear that the law does not require a build alternative plan. It allows that. But if a developer doesn't have that, the law requires one very simple thing, and that's not up to the planning board. I just want to be really clear. The law has and so let's I just want to get the record straight. That's fine. I appreciate that. And and I guess I misunderstood your question because I thought, you know, we had discussed earlier that there are opportunities to pay the fee, do the build alternative or, you know, do the of the voluntary. Those are the three options. So and I just want to because, you know, Councilwoman Sade Abarca asked you a question and she said, what if host didn't think the plan was good enough? What if you said you've offered us to build this many units and host said, we don't think that plan is good enough? Your answer implied that the project would be stopped and that's not the way that it works. So I just want to get back one final time here so that everyone's on the same page. Yeah. My apologies. It is. I mean, people and when we talk to developers, you know, we tell them you've got three options. And our very first initial meeting, we lay that out and, you know, you can pay the fee. And as as Mr. Hill indicated on this particular project, it's like $600,000, which doesn't you know, it barely creates one unit. Or they can do the build alternative, which is a calculation that in this particular instance creates five units, and those are all automatically at 80% area median income. Or they can choose to negotiate with us. And, you know, the way that we presented is you can help us achieve our affordable housing goals in Denver by engaging in these conversations with us and demonstrating your commitment by doing, we always start with 15%. You know. Sometimes you end up with that. So, so, so we're very clear if host decided this plan wasn't good enough for yourselves or for the community, you do not have the power to stop the project. Neither does the planning board. I just want to make sure that record is super clear. Yeah, I think the question. Is that when it comes to planning board, planning board does ask is there an affordable housing agreement in place? Right. So thank you for that. Rick Banks, I want to ask you, you've got a lot of experience in this field. What's the amount of subsidy required to get a unit to 80% of am I to get a unit to 50% of am I to get a unit to 30% of am i i in dollars? Uh. Oh, gosh. And he just turned his camera on. He's going to he's going to he's you can phone a friend. It's 1030. So right after I got my you know. The reason that I'm the reason I'm. Struggling with this a little bit is because. I think of it in terms of the projects that we fund. So the city of Denver provides get financing and we provide only a portion. Of that gap is the state. I want the whole what's the whole what how much you know it costs X amount to build to get it down to the same level is a total amount of subsidy. We you're right we only provide one piece that subsidy. Andrew where where are you jumping in to help? I was going to my internet timed out. The but I can tell. You the difference between for instance, a 80% Army unit would be 1800 dollars of maximum rent per month. I don't think that's what she's asking. Now. I'm I'm frankly asking like a unit costs between 250 and $400,000 to build, depending on the construction type in order to buy down the rent to that unit. Developers typically figure out what the subsidy per unit is. So in in tax credit projects, it might be $150,000 per unit. I mean, I can throw out some numbers that I've heard, but if some you know, if you'd like to if you guys don't have it, it's okay, right? I don't have it off the top of my head. But I will say that I think you heard Mr. Hill say that his particular units are costing 400,000 per unit, but the subsidy, the cost for an affordable housing unit is probably somewhere between 180 and $200,000, just just to construct that unit. And so when you're talking about the amount of subsidy required, it's going to depend on how big that project is. So say you have a 37, $37 million project you're going to be getting, you know. 7 to $10 million in tax credit equity. You're going to come in with. I don't want to take us. Yeah, it's okay if you don't have the number, but it's $5 million. Sorry. I'm going to cut you off if you don't have it. Let's just. Let's just go with this. Does it take more subsidy to get a unit affordable to 30% of BMI than it does to 80% of BMI? Yes. Yes. And where does the subsidy come from in this type of a project? In this project. It comes from the developer's pocket. Well, let's be more specific. What? What, what? What money is coming into the developer's pocket? What subsidizes the affordable units? We don't subsidize that affordable unit in with a dime. But when money comes into the project, it comes in for the market rate units. Right. So the market rate units are what subsidizes the affordable units? Yes, absolutely. Okay. So if there are fewer market rate units, what does that do to the amount of subsidy available for the affordable units? Well, there's not as much. Okay. So I just I want to describe because one of the things that's playing out in the question and answer as well as the testimony is two issues, which is, one, what does the community need to what could this project deliver? Right. There is a question underlying a lot of my colleagues previous questions about feasibility. Is it feasible to do what the community needs? Right. And I think that in order to do that. So let me just say, what's the typical number of units in a five story building? I mean. On an affordable it could be anywhere from if it's a tax credit project, it's going to be about between 60 and 80. Units. So what? So if we have 60 to 80 units and we wanted half of them to be affordable, we'd have, you know, 30 units, let's just say. But you'd only have 30 market rate units to subsidize them. Right. Am I doing my math? Right? Yeah. Yes. You would just have to have really high, high, high rents to subsidize them, depending on what area median income you're trying to achieve. The questions I'm asking are intended to show the math that has to happen in these projects, right, where there's no public subsidy. So now I want to ask the question, because one of the ideas was it was implied by one of our speakers that, yeah, we understand there might be a limit to how much they could do , but then they should get tax credits. Are you familiar with any building in the state of Colorado that has been 50% market rate and 50% tax credits? Have you ever seen that? Have you seen it in any other city or state? Is it your impression that the competitive tax credit projects. So this. Yeah. Well I'm sorry to interrupt. So you you know, there are there's something called the Safe Harbor Law that if you're doing like a bond deal, certain types of financing, you have to provide at least 20% at 50% area median income or 40% at 60. So if you provide the 20% at 50, the rest of them could be market. So in your experience, though, that the tax credits are typically awarded to buildings that are 50% market rate? Have you seen that in Colorado? No. Okay. So I just you know, it's just a question about what's feasible. So one more question about there was a question about doing an economic analysis of the impact of this project. So can someone, maybe the applicant or the the staff from CPD remind me how many acres this project is? Just over an acre. Just over an acre. So the five point statistical neighborhood, do we know how many acres that neighborhood is? This is this lives in the five point statistical neighborhoods. So I just want to. Write I do not. Write square miles anything. I was looking it up. If any of the staff have that figure. I guess my question, you know, and you know, we've talked a little bit about studies. You know, I was in the Anti Displacement Network. Has anyone like Irene or the host have seen a tool that allows you to determine what the displacement impact is of a one acre project on a hundred hundreds of mile? You know, my many square miles. Is anyone seen a tool that allows us to mathematically determine the future impact on displacement of a project of this size ? I haven't seen one that that speaks to the. Displacement. Impact. I've just seen studies that refer to the economic impact, the positive economic impact of affordable housing along transit. Yeah. And this is again, to this question, it's it's important to say that if we're going to vote on the the completeness of an application or its ability to meet the criteria based on doing or not doing an analysis, it's important to know whether that analysis is physically possible given the math and the tools that we have at our disposal. So I think with that, I will go ahead and let us move on. Madam President, thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I've got four quick questions. So the first few are for Mr. Hill. So if you can, you can you tell me if you are familiar with the Work Now program? Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I am not the first. Okay. Okay. So this is a program that the city partners with, along with the state, and it is a separate standalone entity that is working with both union and nonunion apprenticeship programs and they are plugging people from various communities. So we're mandating that in some of our city funded projects so that people from impacted neighborhoods can benefit from the construction jobs. So no, if anybody had talked to you about utilizing that tool as a way people hired on the job to do some of the construction jobs. I would have to look to learn more something. Okay. I will put you in touch with Katrina and work that program. Secondly, can you just speak to you've talked about the square footage or the percentage of the commercial that you're proposing. Can you just speak to what types of jobs you think might be part of that commercial area? And that 5% that you were referring to yesterday? And thank you for your question. So obviously, when the product is being built, we anticipate sort of 2100 jobs for the duration of the construction, which is 2 to 3 years. So they're short term jobs. What's the project is built? We anticipate there being nine full time staff for the apartment project and another six or seven within the commercial space, depending on what it is, is that a restaurant would be hire. Is it a dry cleaner? Would be less. But on average, we expect six, seven, eight in the retail commercial space, plus nine full time staff in the building for the rest of. And in your guess, were you. Committing to at least make those job notifications available and create the opportunity for local residents to maybe take advantage of those through the application process. Yes, thank you for your question. Or the CBA that we proposed that we sign. They have not signed it yet, but we intend to honor everything in that agreement despite accepting it. And there were eight different bullets aside in the affordable housing. Two of those technologies when you mentioned so an affirmative marketing agreement was mentioned in the CBA where we commit to explore and institute a neighborhood affirmative marketing agreement for five points and neighbors. So that's in the residential and. Executive jobs program so that the first opportunity to apply for the affordable units developed on the site and as well as. Not only the people within the retail space but also target GST and five points businesses as a as a hopeful ticket and a commercial space. So the CBA does touch on that. Okay. Great. In the. Report from the staff. It spoke to. Drainage. So input from which water spoke to the drainage issue and the fact that you would need more in-depth engineering on the site and potentially need to do a detention pond or something along those lines to address runoff from the site. So have you done any of that analysis and is there any expectation to have the city fund any of those costs? No, ma'am. We're not asking the city to fund those costs, but we have done our investigations. And what we determined is that because we actually fall outside of the target market, metro district and GDP or just across the street, we can not benefit from their onsite attention to the district. We have to do our own on site attention and water quality. So we'll have an underground detection pulse likely beneath our garage. This is exactly what we're doing across the street right now. And furthermore, this is in large part if not, I don't say excuse me, but this is in large part why the Green Water Foundation supported our project. Is it current? Industrial use is not exactly good for the river, which is the main block away. And furthermore, it's a brownfield development, as I believe you know, comes Ortega, but not all. They realize that this is a brownfield development. It's been historically contaminated site. It was part of an undocumented landfill. So we have engaged CDP to go through a voluntary cleanup plan, a vehicle to arrive at a no further action so that we can ultimately build and occupy this this site as residential so that those cleanup efforts will be have to be completed for to ratify the building. And as well, the water quality one or two issue ought to be handled on site within our within the boundaries of our site without any city or state assistance. And will you just clarify that if you were just doing commercial or just some other type of industrial, that the cleanup would be different than doing it as a residential? That's correct, Councilman. If it maintains we maintain it as industrial, no cleanup would be required to complete it. Can you continue to operate it as industrial site without the cleanup? But to do residential and have people live and sleep on this in this building on the site, we have to get to a ground. Okay. And then my last question. Couldn't tell just from the. The site plan if the spur to the west of the site is an active for an answer. Great question. The most proximate line is inactive. If you go to the site. The most proximate line is half of the ground and half out of the ground. The next proximate line is actually the elevated light rail line, but the closest line that grade is in. Okay. So your proximity to rail then, do you know what the distancing is between you and the the cars? Just on the other side of the RTD corridor is the storage yards, right? The closest active line and grade is 60 feet from our site boundary, and then our building is 75 feet off of our boundary. So 85 feet to the nearest active line of crude. Okay. So that's. In your application, were you asked to check the box on your proximity to where you were? Well and accurately, Councilman, your your concerns with the adjacent property that was denied the museum in May kind of brought all this to light. And so we reached out to CDP as well as started our safety investigation with our civil engineer to make sure we were accounting for this. And our first residential unit because of the 12 over 412 levels of residential over four level garage, our first level of apartments are 50 feet above the ground. Okay. So so essentially you're using your garage as sort of that buffering, if you will. That's okay. Thank you. Madam President, I have no further questions. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Just a couple of questions that have come up based on other comments. Nola, can you speak to. The idea that just because we aren't currently assessing the economic impact or the impact of potential displacement, can you speak to that? And is it possible for us to extrapolate to determine what the impact would be if it is? What kind of things would we analyze and assess? So I think obviously some. Some of the things. That I said before about property, the property value changes, what the sales data of homes selling. The conversions from homeownership to rental which we've seen a 17% drop in Globeville in the last three years. The Rent Burden. There's a concept called the rent gap, which I don't want to totally get into, but the idea is a similar analysis to what land speculators do when they look at this is a piece of land where I'm going to get a lot of income out of it. And it's the percent change of property value, minus the percent change in median rentals over a certain period. So, you know, land speculators would look at that and say this, this is the place where I can raise rents significantly and make quite a bit of money and the land steeper. So the analysis would be the reverse of that, to say there's a vulnerable neighbor, vulnerable renters in this in this neighborhood that need to be protected . I think also looking at what are the amounts of like D.O.D., for instance, there's four duty stations right in this area looking at public investment like I-70 and National Western, and it's improvements and parks and all of these things, you know, maybe separately. But but, you know, how much of that public investment is happening just to look at the pressures that are happening in the area. Another thing that's important, like I said before, is are there affordable housing, existing protected protections around affordable housing in the area? Are those going to expire and do. Yes, they aren't going to expire because we don't have any. So those are some examples. So so it is possible. Also, can you speak to the criteria about public safety, health and welfare of a neighborhood? How would the neighborhood? Because I know you've spent a lot of time on this with the healthy block captains and social determinants of health. How would the neighborhood define something that furthers the safety, the health and the welfare of this community? That's for you, Nola. How how would the neighborhood define a development that did that or. Yeah. What would make a development that furthers the safety, the health and welfare of this neighborhood. You know, I think just because of the circumstance right now, the first thing that we always talk about is the affordability because of the displacement that's happening and that that is is the priority because otherwise we won't have neighbors anymore or the the ones that are currently there. And many have been living there for generations. I think, you know, other other. Things that people care about or would look to would be something that builds the local economy, that builds a sustainability and ongoing improvement in the pollution and conditions in the neighborhood, something that involves the neighborhood equitably, so that the neighborhood feels like they're a part of that. They can be they can enjoy that bus stop and they can enjoy. The types. Of amenities that that might come to be. So something that builds builds community is community development. And do you believe this development does that? No, I don't. Alfonso, can you can you speak a little bit? You mentioned it briefly in your comments, but can you speak a little bit about the acreage? We are talking about one and a half acres, as if it's only one and a half acres here. And this is a unique situation, as Councilman Sandoval highlighted, because we're basically multiplying that one and a half acres by 16. Can you talk a little bit about why this is different and why this shouldn't be treated like just one and a half acres? Thank you, Councilwoman. So if you were to do the calculation of an acre and a half, 60 story development that comes out to over 1 million square feet, to be exact, it's 1,045,440 square feet. So to imply that is just because it's only one and a half acres, it's a small project and it doesn't have an impact on our communities, is a false narrative. It's objectively untrue. And I think that council needs to recognize that this is a small project and it will have an impact on our communities. Earlier, some council members expressed a misunderstanding as to how a development project that sits seemingly disconnected from the residential areas that have been historically here can impact the property values or increase displacement. And, you know, even though it's just an acre and a half, this is proof of that. I mean, the entire grain corridor is proof of that. If you actually look at how many housing units have been built in the original land use that is residential in the communities of GS and five points, you would see that not a lot has actually been changed. But yet there's been, as I alluded to earlier, a 470% increase in property values. And those two things are not disconnected. Thank you. And so what you're basically saying is that the buildable area in in this project is exponentially higher than what you would have anywhere else in the city. And so when you take buildable area into consideration, this project is well over the five acres, actually over 21 acres, I believe, of buildable area that's impacting this neighborhood . So thank you for both for highlighting those things. Thank you. That's it for my questions. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1159 is closed. Comments from members of council and. Just a quick reminder here as well, we still have two other hearings on the agenda tonight. And so if your comments could be brief, we'd much appreciate it so we can get the other folks up. First up, Councilwoman Black. Thanks, Madam President. I needed to go first before I fall asleep. I'll go as fast as I can. You know, having Mayor Pena here tonight for the proclamation was a reminder of where Denver has been. I know a lot of the people that we hear from didn't live here back in the 1980s. Some of them weren't even born yet. But as a Denver native, I do remember this terrible recession that Mayor Pena reminded us of. And during that recession, people were leaving Denver. Our economy tanked. Downtown was a ghost town and housing was really cheap. I remember looking at a house in 1990 that I could not afford in Washington Park. That was $69,000. I should have bought it because today I'm sure it's worth millions and millions of dollars. Even in this century, a little over a decade ago, there was a good supply of housing in Denver. And when the supply is high, prices are low. And it's basic economics. Stopping new housing developments and limiting the supply will not make it more affordable. Lower supply will, combined with an increasing population, will result in even higher housing costs. Since 19. Since 2010, more than 100,000 people have moved here, including many of the people who speak at our council meetings and public comment. It's expected that by 2030, another 150,000 people will move to Denver City. Cities across the country and the world are growing and are experiencing housing shortages. People want to live in cities. We cannot address the housing crisis and the shortage by stopping development of new housing. This developer, Cyprus, came to council this spring with a project that would have included 63 affordable units. It met the legal criteria and aligned with the plans, but it was voted down. That's 63 affordable units for 63 families that won't be built tonight. Cypress is back for another proposal that includes 49 units for 99 years and houses negotiated a good agreement. If it's voted down, that's 49 units of affordable housing that Denver won't have. If you combine that with the 63, that would be 112 units that we won't get. Is spending many millions of dollars every year to address homelessness and to find housing. Of course, it's still not enough, especially during our current crisis. We talked earlier about the millions being spent recently, and even tonight we approved a financing to help the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless construct 90 more units. The city and county of Denver does care and we are working on solutions. That said, our country is a nation of laws and private property and Denver cannot take units from their owners and redistribute them. Alternatively, we need to encourage developers to build new units, whether by carrot or stick. I think we're all hopeful that some state legislation will pass and in the future we will be able to require units from developers. But those units will be in new developments that are not yet built. Stopping development is not the answer to our housing crisis. Unless people start moving away from Denver, we will need more housing. And of course, we will need to ensure that until we are out of this current economic crisis, we will need to extend the eviction moratorium. This project meets our legal criteria, aligns with our plans, and will provide much needed housing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Canete. Thanks, Madam President. Before I speak, we do have a custom of typically allowing the district councilperson to go first, even if they aren't fast enough to chime in as we all kind of jump in. And I did just want to if my colleague would like to go first, I'd be happy to see the floor to her since it's in her district. Thank you so much for for doing that. I appreciate that. And sorry about that. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead. First, as you might imagine, I've been looking at this screen since about 430 this afternoon. So apologies. I rather actually close this out. So go ahead. Okay. Thanks. So I, I really appreciate the discussion we've had tonight. I think it's a really important one. And I am sorry that it's happening so late and before other topics, because it's really important for us to spend time on it. And I want to say that I, I believe the things that I'm hearing from residents who are opposed to this project tonight. I believe that growth and development is a factor in displacement pressures and prices. I, i we may disagree about whether you can back out the transit stops, the parks and the thousands of other units to attribute what the impact is to one building. But I I'm not at all trying to argue the fact that there is there is impact collectively of all of these things and that each building or development contributes to those impacts and that we need to do more to study and evaluate them. I think the debate that we're having in so far tonight is about whether or not this tool of market development is the answer to mitigate all of those concerns. And so we have a scale mismatch, right? The scale of the pressures that NOLA and all of those who testified, you know, described are so great. Right. The pressures of population growth that Councilwoman Black mentioned, the pressures of, you know, transit infrastructure and the pressures of, you know, all of those things. And so to be able to say that each one individual project can meet the scale of that is, I think, the concern I have about the the asks. So I believe in asking development to mitigate its impacts, but it has to be within the the market economy that it operates. That's the tool. It's not a tool for public ownership of land when you're leveraging and redevelopment, generally speaking, unless you're in a bigger area. So the more you know, I do think it is unfortunate that the city didn't have a mechanism to sweep this in. I actually thought we did have a mechanism to sweep in disparate developments, even if they happened at slightly different locations and at slightly different times. I did think we had a mechanism to sweep them into LDR. So I will commit to spending time with staff to figure out why that didn't happen. Maybe we just were a little too far apart in time, but that allows developers to game it. So if we have a bigger redevelopment area, then our potential to mitigate impacts grows because you can, for example, put a tax credit project for 30% or 50% of housing on one spot, which works because they have to generally be self-contained to get to those and my levels. And then you can do workforce or you can do business, you can. The bigger the site, the more you can try to get to the scale. But even still, you're operating in a market economy. And so the challenge I have is, you know, I think it's legitimate for a community to say we can't take any more development and what we want to do is oppose this project. If that is what we're happening, that we absolutely be within the right, that would be you know, I'd suggest you talk about the criteria, you know, of the zoning, but but you don't have to say we could possibly support this. But what becomes hard is when the testimony before a council is, hey, listen, we really don't want the development, but if you did these totally unrealistic things that don't work in a market economy where someone has to pay for the land, they actually have to pay for the construction materials, they have to pay for the construction workers . And yes, they have to pay their lenders. Their lenders are going to charge them interest. Those are not optional things. The challenge is trying to use this tool to solve those problems at that scale. And I will just share with I my colleagues have been very enthusiastic about the legislature making changes. The number one concern I hear from people about the state legislature making this change is they believe that local governments or the community have unrealistic expectations of what inclusionary can deliver. They think that we're out there saying it can solve homelessness, it can solve all these things, and they think it's a set up for them. And so the more we can demonstrate that we understand that this is a tool and we need a whole bunch other tools, like we need the things that, you know, Nola described. Right? I agree that we need them. I've advocated for them. We might have different timelines, different ideas, you know. But I think that in a place where people have to pay for land, they have to pay for construction materials and workers, and they have to pay interest on loans and lenders to get money. There are limits to what we can do in a particular project. So I say all this not to say that I know this is the magic great number I think we've out tonight has surfaced a lot of issues. I've said before, we are not focusing enough on the displacement conversation and to the extent we're only doing it in rezonings, we are not doing a service to Greece or to any other neighborhood. You know, we had the folks in East Colfax here tonight is we can't just have this conversation around rezonings because it's already private land . When they're before us, it's already too late. Right. It's not going to be public land or it's going to be a parcel and you're only going to be able to do one thing on it, not five. And the neighborhood needs five things. So I think that so we surface that issue, we surface the fact that we are not as a city consulting with the community in the process of doing our negotiations over the development agreement. That's a problem. It's not the way every city does it. San Francisco seats the committee takes input before they negotiate with developers. We could do that. So that is an issue. We've surfaced and we have surfaced. The incredible pressure that this neighborhood is under. I think the only issue I'm taking is about the ability to solve all those things in scale in this tool. Right. So I want to just touch on the criteria real quickly. I think that the project does meet those criteria, and I think for those reasons I will support it. But that is not a vote against the things that this community is asking for. It's a vote to try to pursue them at different scales and with different mechanisms that are better designed to get to them. You know, could could this project have done 3% more? They certainly offered to do some 30% of my units. And the concern was they weren't enough. I'm not saying it was perfect, but I'm saying it seems in the realm of what these projects typically can carry, and that is when there has been independent analysis by city consultants on the feasibility, when they put in all those costs in cities across the America have done these feasibility studies and they all come out about the same place, which tells me we're not missing something by major degrees of magnitude. It tells me that we're in the realm of what this tool can deliver, and we should keep pushing it. We should keep pushing this tool, right? We should keep pushing the the envelope. But we are not out of the realm of of what other cities and other places with like less restrictive laws and similar economics can achieve. So that tells me something. And in light of the criteria, I have to vote for this tonight, but we'll keep doing the work. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Kinney. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. And while brevity is convenient for us at 11 p.m., a project that's going to impact a neighborhood forever warrants deep care and thorough consideration that might be inconvenient. So this will not be brief. Before I begin, I want to restate what's being considered tonight. We're considering a development that is 16 stories where there is a current warehouse, there are no height specifications. In the end, the plan for the development of this area, specifically the Rhino Plan, despite it being adjacent to the river and the project itself is designed to capitalize on the river activation. The tallest allowable height in all of the Rhino Plan is eight stories. There are also no affordability incentives for this area, despite it being built next to the 38th and Blake Park Station less than a mile away. As you heard, the community benefit of housing was negotiated without community at the table defining their needs. This rezoning is being proposed by a developer who has yet to buy the land because of the exponential value increase resulting from this rezoning and it being necessary in order for them to purchase the land. Our task tonight is to make sure that this rezoning meets five criteria. I want to speak to criteria one and three. First, I want to inform you that I attempted to serve as a convener for residents of our neighborhood and the developer. Between the introduction of this bill and tonight's meeting. At that meeting, my hope was deeper negotiation around community benefits. I was disheartened but unsurprised to see a consistent issue arise, an issue that will increasingly become a worse issue with our newer area plans that have just been passed. That issue is the definition of community benefits, affordability, public safety and welfare. As a city, we've passed area plans that require community benefits as a condition of rezoning. Yet during this meeting, I had reflected to me that we as a city do not define when we as a city do not define community benefits. We're essentially tossing the ball to developers to define a community's benefit for us. The power dynamic of a rezoning such as this is set up with that imbalance from the very beginning. A developer with millions of dollars to spend and millions of dollars to be gained have the responsibility of conducting a process of convincing low income residents that they need this developer's project. They have all of the tools to literally and figuratively paint a picture of what could be without telling the residents what the unintended consequences of the project might be. They have millions of dollars to convince you and the residents that their perception of the community and what it needs is superior to what the community says themselves they need. No matter how many residents show up, no matter how much research they present to prove their experience is valid, we default credibility to the developer who knows better than the community the cost of the development to their bottom line. Never do we assess the cost of the development and the casualties of the class war that we have waged on low income and working class residents. We align with anyone who defines community benefits in the ways that validate the developer's definition of community benefits. Affordability. From the day we decided to align our definition with the Federal Government's shift from public housing to am I or area median income based affordability as our ceiling for affordability instead of our floor, we waged war upon the poor in this city. You see, in this scenario, when affordable depends on the area's median or middle income, densify and an area with higher incomes fundamentally changes the middle value. You flood an area with higher incomes and not only change the middle income, but now bump out any chance for truly taking care of the lowest income individuals. You functionally sentence the poor to a life of homelessness in a city with the so-called booming and growing economy. Finally, public safety and welfare as a criterion interpreted by anyone other than the people who live in a neighborhood is asinine, especially in the context of modern and social, modern social movements and modern realizations of different versions of America that exist depending on our race, class, nationality, etc.. We and I speak to you as an LGBTQ woman of color in a biracial working class family. Do not live in the same America. We do not live in the same America as white or wealthy Americans, where safety to white or wealthy America is primarily defined as safety from people like me and communities like mine. One definition of safety and welfare is incomprehensible. Even tonight, you heard my community defined by members of GMB and others as being derelict in the past or some other iteration of less than. This is exactly how we are perceived. And so we are no longer primarily inhabited by people like us. That's how our neighborhood is categorized as derelict. Until the demographics shift, diluting our poverty or blackness or brownness is the definition of safety that is implied by many of our choices to redevelop our communities. Safety to us is about being able to have our forever home. It's about being able to work a 40 hour workweek and own a home that we can pass down to our children. It's about being able to enjoy the new parks and the new businesses without seeing rent signs or for sale signs that, in different words, communicate to us. No poor people here or no immigrants here or no people of color here. Now, many of you might feel a wound being touched. You want to scream, you want to say, this is not about race or class or nationality. This is an exaggeration and it's completely separate. I challenge you to disregard your own privilege to decide what is valid and not valid and actually listen to the residents and consult the data because the data justifies what we're saying. Last year, Denver was the number one city displacing Latinos in the nation. It was only about 15 years ago that Denver was classified as a majority minority city, with Latinos being that top minority. Look at the data to find out where we lived and where we are now. Either where we're absent or where we're struggling to hang on. Please take into consideration tonight that the comprehensive plan and blueprint direct us to aspire to equity and safe, healthy neighborhoods for everyone in our city, not just the ones who can afford it. While those plans allow for interpretation of equity, community, community benefits, health and safety, you tonight have actual residents in front of you who have done the heavy legwork of explaining to you their lived experience and defining for you what equity, safety and welfare mean from their perspective. We have collectively protected the single family zoning character of wider, wealthier neighborhoods in other parts of our city. We've taken into consideration their fears, their desires, their self-determination and demands for protection and interpretation of our city's goals on their terms. Tonight. Your rezoning on the border of a historically black five points and historically immigrant. Yes, both working class and both redlined. We abused and neglected these families for generations until we decided that the urban core was again desirable. We can not place the entire of burden, the entire burden of growth on a single neighborhood or a single district. We cannot ignore the natives on this riverbank. We cannot continue the notorious legacy of forcible removal of a peoples from their land. The tools of removal have changed, but the outcomes have not. You have the tools in your hand right now. The five criterion in front of you tonight are tools that only ask you to stretch your perspective, to see the perspectives of the people who we should be building this community for. Please let the overwhelming majority of opponents to this reasoning inform your interpretation of what it means to facilitate equity, safety and welfare in this community. This is not about density. This is about the kind of density we need. This is this is not about this project all by itself. This is about a new standard and interpretation of what we need as a city in the middle of a global pandemic, a housing crisis and racial uprisings. This is not about a community's right to complain. It's about all of us having the right to define what makes us each feel safe and healthy in our own neighborhoods. A 16 storey market rate or luxury development will essentially be a bomb set off in the middle of this community. Please do not detonate this bomb in the face of residents begging you to protect them. Just because we have not figured it out as a city, we haven't figured out how to protect the safety and welfare of struggling people. It doesn't mean that we have to be the ones to light the match for the bomb that will erase them. Please, I beg of you. This is my district. This is my home. This is my community. And a 16 storey building is not what we need right now. I'm not saying forever, and I'm not saying a different type of 16 storey building isn't warranted. But this particular one is not consistent with what we've set forth in our plans and our goals for this city and this neighborhood. Please vote no. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to go on record and say that. There's five criteria that we have to vote on are antiquated. And then we had a meeting with the planning board. I know it doesn't seem like it. We had it this year, but we really did have a meeting with this year with planning board pre-COVID. And when I asked the question about where the five criteria came from, they came from former Chapter 59. So I think it's time that we update our criteria to council. Can you just point we have to have better tools to solve the problems that we're hearing from the people that we heard from today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And since there's no one else up in the queue listening to the conversation tonight and all of the questions and folks digging in, our criteria might be antiquated, but they are our criteria and they are the legal criteria for it. And we are talking about one and a half acres of land, albeit possibly a 16 story building. We need the affordable housing and we need that partnership because where the final the financial straits of the city are in. We couldn't build this. And so we are going to have to figure out how to partner and hold developers accountable, especially during this time. And so seeing that it meets all of the criteria, I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. CDEBACA El Nino. Clark. Hi. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Can I? Ortega. Reluctant. I. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. Now. Torres. So. Lack. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Four days. 9 hours. Nine I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1159 has passed. Councilmember Canete, will you please put Council Bill 1190 on the floor for final passage, please?