Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the community planning and housing committee with Denver City Council.

Your community planning and housing committee starts now.

Wow.

Oh.

We have one.

Two online.

Two online.

Perfect.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

I'm Diana Romero Campbell, and we are here for the community planning and housing meeting today.

We have an action item, a briefing, and a few items on consent.

And we are gonna start with introductions.

I'm gonna start to my left.

Great.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ronald Vitres, and I represent Lucky District 7.

Hi, Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

And I believe we have some council members online.

Maybe Cora for Dover District.

Three.

Chanta Luis, District 8.

I hear you.

And I did not announce for my district either.

So Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

So let's go ahead and get started.

We have a rezoning for 1760 East 56th Avenue and 4991 North Tellurde Street.

I'm gonna turn it over to you, Libby.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Libby Glick with Community Planning and Development, and I'll be presenting the rezoning for 4991 North Telly Ride and 1760 East 56th Avenue, also known as the Denver Spur.

So first I'll go through the request, then the location, the process, and finally the review criteria.

The applicant is requesting to rezone this property at 56th Intellide from CMU 10, which is a mixed use district with conditions and CMU 30 with waivers and the adult use overlay to SMX 5, which is a mixed-use zone district and SMX 8, as also a mixed-use zone district.

So as stated previously, the applicant is requesting SMX 5 and SMX 8.

You can see where each of those districts are proposed on the map.

But the SMX 5 allows for up to five stories or 70 feet in height, and then SMX 8 allows for up to 8 stories or 110 feet in height, and they both allow the drive-thru building forms as well as general and shop front.

So now we'll go through the location and the context.

This is in Council District 11 in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch neighborhood, just east of Pena Boulevard.

So as stated previously, the current zoning is CMU 10 with conditions and CMU 30 with waivers and the adult use overlay.

So both of these are zoned districts in our former Chapter 59 zoning code that allow for a variety of their mixed-use zone districts.

So they're uh close to some single unit districts, as well as other mixed use and then the DIA district.

So the current uh land use is vacant, but it's adjacent to some single unit properties and multi-unit, both to the east.

This shows these existing building form and scale with the subject property on the top, and then you can see an example of some of the single unit homes down below that are directly east of the site.

So this property submitted for the large development review process, and it was deemed to be applicable because it's larger than five acres.

Um there's specific guidance in the far northeast area plan about using the LDR process.

A rezoning was proposed.

There's also infrastructure improvements that would be required through an infrastructure master plan as well.

Um there's also urban design standards and guidelines that uh are applicable to this area.

So they are about street design, site planning, architectural design, landscape design, signage, and lighting, and the intent is just to make sure that the built environment is as an appropriate scale.

They have also are they are entering into a high impact development compliance plan with host.

Um so this would require 12% of the multi of the residential units to be income restricted at up to 60% of area median income, and then 10% would be restricted to those earning up to 30% of AMI, and then a minimum of 70% of the total IRUs will have to have two or three bedrooms.

And we do have hosts here who can answer more questions about this high-impact development compliance plan.

So now we'll go through the process.

This was complete at the beginning of September.

It went to Planning Board January 21st, and we're here before you today, and it'll go to City Council in early April.

Um we've only received two public comments.

One is from the Montbello 2020 and beyond RO, and they submitted a letter in support citing the applicant's community engagement, the public amenities that would be provided as a part of this rezoning, which sorry, I should have mentioned this earlier.

As part of the rezoning, 17 acres has been sold to Denver Public Schools to become a future school site.

So with schools, and then as well as the subdivision regulations in this part of the city require a dedicated park space, so there will also be park space that's included.

So those public amenities as well as the affordable housing as a part of this high impact development compliance plan.

And then we received one comment from a neighboring resident in opposition to the request.

They had concerns with traffic, the loss of green space, and then public safety with more multi-units coming online.

As stated previously, this went to planning board on January 21st, where the board voted unanimously to recommend approval.

Most of the questions were around kind of the large development review process and the traffic impacts.

So now we'll go through the review criteria.

So there are three review criteria that must be met in order for rezoning to be approved.

The first is consistency with adopted plans, and there are three plans applicable to this rezoning.

I won't, in the interest of time, I won't go through all the comprehensive plan strategies, but you can read more about that in your staff report.

So we'll go straight to Blueprint.

So the future neighborhood context is suburban, and both of the districts proposed are within the suburban neighborhood context in the Denver zoning code.

The future place type is community center, which provides a mix of office commercial and residential consistent with the mixed-use districts that are proposed.

And the street types are commercial and mixed-use arterials, again, consistent with mixed-use zone districts.

The growth area strategy is community centers and corridors, where we anticipate to see 25% of new housing and then 20% of new employment growth.

And then blueprint also for large rezonings like this.

We need to consider our do an equity analysis.

So this looks at improving access to opportunity, reducing vulnerability to involuntary displacement, and then housing diversity.

It has lower scores when it comes to child obesity, access to parks, fresh food and transit.

But with this rezoning, the subdivision regulations will apply, which will require a park to be placed, so that score would then improve.

And then for vulnerability to involuntary displacement, it scores as vulnerable on two of the three factors.

So the applicant is pursuing as part of this process a high impact development compliance plan with host.

So that may help any involuntary displacement that could occur.

And then finally, for expanding housing diversity, this area scores as diverse on all five metrics.

And the proposed zone district allows for a variety of residential uses.

So it will maintain help maintain the housing diversity in the area.

It will rezone an old code property into the Denver zoning code.

And then it will address climate by allowing for a mixed-use development in a suburban area of the city that generally has uses that are pretty separated.

And then it's also their the applicant is proposing multi-unit buildings, which are generally more energy efficient than lower density residential developments.

So now we'll move to the far northeast area plan.

So the future place type and future context are the same as Blueprint Denver, so I won't go through those, but the far northeast plan does include a height map.

And so the specific height guidance for this area is up to eight stories, and they're proposing a five-story and an eight-story district consistent with the height guidance.

And then there's several strategies that it furthers in the Far Northeast Plan, including using large-scale rezonings to bring properties from the former Chapter 59 into the Denver zoning code.

It will promote affordable housing developments along high-density mixed-use corridors, as well as promoting a mixed-use development along Pena Boulevard.

So this rezoning will further the public interest and that it will rezone a property from the former Chapter 59 code into the Denver zoning code.

And additionally, the proposed zone districts will allow for a significant increase in density.

So a greater mix of uses at greater density, promoting you know more walkability and pedestrian friendliness than what could exist under the current zone districts.

And then finally, this rezoning is consistent with the suburban context, the mixed-use zone districts, and the specific intent of the SMX 5 and SMX 8 zone districts.

And so finding all three review criteria have been met, staff recommends approval of this proposed rezoning.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to welcome Council President Sandoval to the meeting.

And we're gonna go ahead and start the queue first with Sawyer.

I mean, Councilmember Sawyer.

Same thing, same thing.

Council Member Sawyer, I've been called worse.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Uh so question for the applicant, I think.

Um why, so with the current zoning, it peters that you microphone right there.

Um, and please just introduce yourself for the record.

So, question for you is if we're moving from MU, which is a residential only um district, to MX, which is mixed use, um, is there any guarantee that there is going to actually be any of this housing built?

Because MX could be retail, it could be office, it could be housing.

Um, so just like what's the plan?

Yes, you bet.

Um Libby, is it possible for you to pull up a map?

The goal of this uh project.

You have to introduce yourself.

Sorry.

You're all good.

Uh Peter Wall here on behalf of the uh the applicant.

Um so the goal of this project is really to create horizontal mixed use across the larger 74-acre site.

Um so what we've done actually in collaboration, listening to community feedback and talking to councilwoman Gilmore is you'll see there's two planning areas that are on the north that are by 56th Avenue.

Originally, those areas were actually smaller, we only had four acres, and that was supposed to be commercial.

We've actually increased that to 12 acres so that'll all be community serving commercial below where you see the SMX 8.

We're anticipating one actual retail site, not retail site, residential site, excuse me.

Then there's the Denver Public School site.

Then we're gonna have an additional residential site that's along Irondale Gulch, where you see that OSA, that's the park.

So there's a residential site that's bordering the gulch there.

Oh great, okay.

SMX 8, the area that's on the east there, that's gonna be affordable project, and that's all residential.

So there's a separate developer going in for LITEC on that piece.

Okay, so you'll see three different residential projects, some market rate, some that are gonna be affordable, hopefully.

And then then the community serving residential and the DPS school site.

So, really, what we're trying to do is incorporate a handful of different different land uses across the entire site.

Great, really appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um, next we're gonna go online to Councilmember Torres.

I think Councilman Sawyer got to all the questions I have.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great.

Um, Council President Sandoval.

Thank you.

Hey Peter, I have a question.

So um to Councilman, to piggyback off of Councilman Sawyer, um, it's not required, right?

So say 10 years down the line or five years down the line or next year.

Here If it's go a hundred and three percent higher.

Um, is there a good neighbor agreement, or is it a handshake deal, or yeah, not necessarily required, but I think just in terms of looking at market conditions, the most viable sites for that commercial right are gonna be really along 56th Avenue.

That 12 acres, so really less viable to sit there and have a significant amount of commercial that's tucked away off of 56th Avenue with with less visibility.

So I think we tried to right size it and put it put it in the areas that made the most sense.

So I think the most viable uses uh talking to development partners and talking to the owners are to actually include that residential.

And would it wrap the with the retail wrap around 50 tally ride or just be front facing on 56?

Uh there would be retail along tell your ride, and then it would go deeper into uh along tell your ride.

So we've included 12 acres up there, and we think that's probably sufficient based on market demand.

If we went even deeper in, we'd probably lose a little bit of market demand, and also that residential is really appealing to do, and probably the next highest and best use once you're far enough in off of the so it'd be front-facing, so it wouldn't so the market the retail would be on tally right.

Facing west, yeah, on 56 and then on tell you ride.

Got it.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um council member Alvidres.

Thank you so much.

Um, don't go anywhere Peter.

Um I just wanted to hear a little bit about the community engagement process and how you you know were able to get that buy-in from Montbello 2020.

Absolutely.

We've we've been at it um a few years now.

Um, it started with an infrastructure master plan or sorry, LDR and then an infrastructure master plan.

So it started out with community engagement through the LDR process.

Um councilwoman Gilmore was great enough to do a community survey after that first LDR meeting to help us understand what some of the greater community need was here, and a lot of that led to some of the changes we made.

So, like I talked about increasing the retail from four four acres to 12 acres to get more community serving retail.

She really wanted us to sell that 17 acres to DPS for the school site, which we've done.

That's gonna be a K-8, is our understanding.

Um, we're selling about six, you're not selling it, but dedicating six acres on the southern portion um to the parks department that they have three acres already, so that's gonna create a regional park.

Parks and green space was a big piece of this.

There's gonna be a regional trail that's running along the western portion of the property.

So all that to be said, you know, we had that LDR meeting, we made a bunch of changes, but we continue to engage Mont Bellow 2020 and work with Miss Ann.

I think we had lots of sit-down meetings and conversations and a presentation with Montbello 2020, and ultimately that led us to earn their support.

Wow, wonderful.

Thank you for that.

Great job.

Thank you.

Thank you, can we read it?

Um, don't go anywhere on that.

So, you're back in the queue.

Thank you.

Um, I did forget to ask about the green space, right?

So that three acres on the bottom right-hand corner of that map, we already own that.

That's already zoned OSA.

So that's city-owned land already.

So you said just now you're going to connect another three acres to that.

Uh it's another, it's a little under six.

So total it'll be your guys' three acres that you already own plus the five-ish and change acres that we're doing.

So it'll be like almost a nine-acre park.

Yes, correct.

So if you almost take that, you see the kind of odd tip that goes up on the OSA.

Uh-huh.

If you take that and go across and basically create a square, sorry, if you go straight across to the west, that's the piece.

That's the piece that we're going to be um dedicating over to uh to DPR to create that regional park.

Okay, and then um the additional because that what how many acres is this?

74.

So you would need to have 7.4 acres, it's 10%, isn't it?

Yeah, we have there's with the gateway design regs and rules and regs.

Oh, that's right.

There's a major, we have a major parks requirement, and then we have a neighborhood parks requirement, and all of that is based off of a certain number of units.

So we've said we're going to put 684 units on the site, which leads to us having a certain number of acres under major park and regional park, and we've met all that.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I forgot that it was all under gateway.

It's a little bit different than looking at other areas of the city.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um, thank you.

I do have a question about the school.

Where are the 17 acres where the school will go?

Yeah, it's um you see where that CMU 30 is?

That's right to the west right there.

That's in the neighborhood.

I'm sorry.

Sorry, the school site's basically right in the middle of that large SMX 5 area.

Yeah, right there where Libby's got her mouse.

All right, my other questions were answered.

Um, do we have any other questions?

Oh, I was gonna move.

Oh, okay.

All right, councilman Torres.

Uh, let's go back to the queue and with councilmember Torres.

Thank you so much, madam chair.

Hey, Peter, you're just dedicating the land.

Are you also building the park?

Oh, we're just dedicating the land.

Okay.

There's a yeah, there's a regional trail on the west that we are dedicating, and in our agreement with parks, we're gonna be maintaining that, but on the actual park itself, we are just dedicating the land, and they're gonna be building the park.

Got it, okay.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome, you're welcome.

All right.

Um, this is an action item.

Do we have a motion?

We'll move.

Okay, council member Alvidres and second and second to seconded by it over there.

Um by council president uh Sandoval.

I saw her hand first, and that's everybody good online as well.

Thank you.

All right, let's go on to the next one.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Libby.

Okay, our next uh item up is a briefing, which is an update for expanding housing affordability policy.

So, I think it's so cozy, it's been cozy.

It goes good with the white too.

Only gave it to my mom.

It's a moms.

I know it's freezing.

Okay.

All right, whenever you're ready.

Wonderful.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Laya Mitchell from the Department of Housing Stability, and I'm joined by my colleagues.

John Colorelli, Department of Housing Stability.

Emily Collins with CPD.

And we're here to provide an update on expanding housing affordability and outcomes.

So our agenda, we'll do a quick overview of the policy, provide some updates on outcomes to date, check in on linkage fee impacts, and then open up for questions from you all.

So it's a very high-level overview.

Expanding housing affordability was built to create mechanisms so that all new development contributes to affordable housing.

So under the policy, um units that are 10 or plus units are required to have on-site um affordable units built, which is our middle column, and then as a reminder on either side, um, residential developments that are one to nine units, contribute to affordable housing via the linkage fee.

Um, and then other types of developments such as hotel, office, retail, industrial also contribute to affordable housing through a linkage fee based on kind of their square footage and building type.

So today we're primarily focusing on that 10 plus units, the what we typically consider expanding housing affordability policy, and we've included a slide here on the timeline.

Mostly just as a as a reminder of how much uh extensive outreach was part of the initial forming of the policy.

So starting in about 2020 and through policy adaptation in June of 2022, there's extensive community engagement, stakeholder engagement, including kind of with the development community with housing advocates.

Um there were six city council meetings as well as many briefings during that time to gather input and shape the policy.

Um there were 11 advisory committee meetings, and through that there were several studies, including a market feasibility analysis, um, and some best practice kind of research and housing needs analysis that went into the formation of the policy.

It was formally adopted by council in Q2 2022.

Um we did have as you all know well, a big spike in concept applications before that, and um, because of that high volume, we had two grace periods um for those projects that we kind of consider that EHA cohort, pre EHA cohort, which was extended in May 2023, May 2024, and then um the grace period expired in April of 2025.

Um so we're now in the fully um fully in action EHA period, and then below here we just have some notes about um the EHA policy was adopted and has become um active during a period of quite a bit of market um flux and change, including sort of peak record low interest rates.

We had a lot of um development.

Denver was a very hot market for a little while.

Now in March 2022, interest rates um increased quite a bit.

We had um a lot of challenges with inflation.

Um and we're now kind of in the way in the current period um of all these factors coming together.

Um the next couple slides we have, they are it's a lot of outcome data.

We don't have a lot of like narrative associated with it, but we wanted to present you with uh kind of counting statistics about the number of projects that we've done, the number of units that they're planned to produce.

I'll stop at the end of every slide if you all have questions.

But um, where we are right now, uh that top little table is what we consider standard EHA agreements.

So these are not the high impact development ones where we negotiate and which often come to city council.

These are kind of just like your standard apartment building or townhome complex that's getting built.

Um we lumped in negotiated alternatives because to this point, you know, there's an option for a developer to come and say, hey, I've got this great idea.

What if I donate a parcel of land?

Can you give me some leeway on the number of units that I have to provide on site?

So far, we have had a lot of those conversations so far.

They've pretty much all produced affordable units on site, just in different amounts.

Like they'll say, hey, we'll give you bigger units, but we don't want to have to provide so many of them.

And we we've made a couple of those agreements, but they all fit into this table where we're kind of counting units at the end of the day.

So we haven't separated that category out specifically.

What doesn't uh get put up there right now is the developers who are building fully affordable projects via Litech because we don't really consider like EHA didn't create those units, although EHA is a way that we document that they exist, but that's not included in here.

And the other one that you may have seen that is not included in here is folks that come and they agree to say uh for rezoning and they come and they say, hey, 12% of units will be affordable, but we don't have any development plans.

It's just you know, when we start building 10 years from now, we promise there'll be affordability.

Since there's no development plans, we haven't included that.

So kind of the ones that we would consider standard.

We have 60 agreements that are I would say in process.

Um 42 of those are maybe it's helpful to explain.

Uh, when a developer submits a site development plan, we ask them to submit a draft affordable housing plan.

So this is kind of like 60 projects that are eligible and that we consider to be uh mandatory affordable, they will have to comply with mandatory affordable housing.

Of those, 42 of them have gone to a point where we've signed an agreement with them, kind of locking in what their commitment is.

18 of them still early on in the process, and they haven't formally committed to anything.

We usually sign an agreement and then we wait until the SDP is approved before we record it because we want to make sure you know stuff changes during the SDP review process.

And so we wait until the SDP is approved, then we tend to record those agreements.

Right now, I think 24 of those 42 are actually recorded, which means that um we're fairly certain that those projects are gonna come to fruition.

Um, as you can see, out of those 60 eligible projects are gonna result in about 6,400 total units, 570 income restricted units, which is about 9% of the total units that are coming online are gonna be affordable.

Um, and we're gonna talk about the ones that are paying the fee in lieu in a couple of slides.

But some projects are paying the fee in lieu of those, about a quarter have opted for extra levels of affordability in order to take advantage of the enhanced incentives, which is essentially the height incentive or density incentives.

Um, yeah, and 10 million dollars worth of fee and loo expected from I think eight projects that have said rather than providing units on the site, we would rather pay the fee in lieu.

All of those uh little fun facts that you see under the tables are also related to the standard agreements, those don't include high impact developments.

But um, you can kind of see that timeline that Laia ran through where we talked about this policy's been enacted for several years, but between 2022 and 2024, only 12 agreements were signed that whole time.

And like last year alone, we had more than twice as many signed.

And so we expect the we expect the pace to look more like 2025 than 2022, you know.

Um about a quarter of the projects are ownership developments, the rest are rental.

Sorry, I'm just reading these now.

But um, the other just kind of interesting commentary.

I think, is that there we were, I don't know about concern.

It would have been a cause for concern if we were only seeing one type of project getting built and trying to comply with expanding housing affordability.

But you can see the scale of projects is actually pretty evenly distributed.

We're seeing some, and these are all these are all over 10 units, so about a quarter of projects are between 10 and 20 units, and then um you can see big apartment complexes there as well.

But you know, it's not like expanding housing affordability has resulted in no construction of a particular type of development.

Yeah, next slide.

Here's a map.

Another thing that we would have been concerned about is if there's a real serious geographic uh consolidation of the projects that are getting built.

But there's a fairly even spread throughout the city of Denver.

Do you guys want to sleep it up for a minute?

We have access to it.

Yeah, okay.

Um, and also weren't there any questions about that?

First slide or questions at the end.

Yeah, we'll do questions.

Uh sounds great.

So we put together a couple of slides.

One is about uh high-impact developments, and then the next one we're gonna look at the those fee and loop projects.

You all might be more familiar with these, these are specific projects.

Out of the six that you see here, five of them are signed and recorded.

One of them you heard about like a half hour ago.

Um, and the one that doesn't show up here is the old ATT site higher in 40 where we did record an agreement, but now that development plan, like the development program is likely to change because that site just got sold to Denver Water, and so we are trying to figure out what to do with the affordable housing plan that's on that site.

Um, but you can see just kind of the scale of the high impact developments is really great compared to our standard EHA projects, but also these are gonna take 15-20 years to build in some cases, so uh we we put them in a separate category, but so far all of those is also resulting in the creation of affordable units on site.

Yeah, yeah, strict gene.

Um and then the last little interesting piece is we we were specifically asked which pro what type of projects are paying out of this and not needing not opting to comply by providing affordable units on site.

In good news, it's only about 13% of total projects.

Um interestingly, and I think this was anticipated when EHA was passed.

There's really one product type that tends to opt for the fee and loo.

Um, it's town home projects, which isn't to say that all town home projects are opting for the fee and loo, but just all of the projects that are opting for the fee and loo happen to be town home projects.

That condominium project is a luxury condo, the rental apartment project is for a very specific population.

Um I think serving uh seniors, and so like even even those two that are not town home projects kind of are special cases where you might expect to see a project that didn't want to comply by um providing the affordable units on site, and so the in total this results in something like 370 units, I believe, out of which 30 of them would have been affordable units at minimum if they were deciding to comply via on-site compliance, and so rather than those 30 affordable units, the city is in theory getting 10 million dollars in fee and loo to go towards uh regrouping the building permit fees that CPD uh provides to on-site developers and also supporting affordable housing, other affordable housing projects.

So the CPD side of this, right, is um tracking where those are in their permitting.

So John talked a little bit about the site development plan.

Uh the next stage is building permitting and then construction, and often the building permit and the site plan may run concurrently, but in this case, we wanted to really specifically break down the status of just the agreements overall, and then um four projects that are actively in plan review and in construction again, like just showing that many projects are coming to fruition, right?

They're not just signed or drafted agreements, like these are gonna be on the ground projects.

So a couple of categories to present.

Um, these are projects that are in plan review.

So money has been spent, right, to hire architects and engineers and submit through building plan review.

Um, they're just not done, but most of them are also on site compliance.

A couple of them are fee and loose, so again, they haven't paid.

This is the expected contribution.

Um, and kind of all over the map with the number of units that will be uh resulting from these projects, everything from one or two units all the way up to 27.

So it's really a range, but these we do expect to see sooner than later.

Um the next slide is the next phase of the entitlement process, right?

They got out of the plan review, they got an approved building permit, they have started construction.

So again, we're more confident these will come to fruition.

And um, again, most of these are all on-site compliance option, one fee and lose, so that's the one that has paid.

Um, and again, quite a spread of units being built on site from two to three all the way up to 38.

Um the top two sites are up at 64th in Dunkirk, and those are very, very close to obtaining their final certificate of occupancy.

So those buildings are almost probably every week, one is coming online, so those will um be on the next slide here soon.

But um, that's the in-construction projects, and then the next slide is the few that are fully built open and should have somebody in them, presumably.

Um, so those are when those permits were final.

Um we had our the first one was July 25 is the hotel that got converted to um dwelling units.

We got two income restricted units there.

Um the Monaco project is a uh another hotel that was converted to dwelling units and is open, and then um the next project had the three uh Louisiana.

So those are fully open, operational, and IRUs are in use.

And then we included a slide as well about the linkage fee investments alongside the inclusionary housing component.

We have the linkage fee that was increased as part of uh that was increased as part of um expanding housing affordability or the mandatory affordable housing policy, um, and that linkage fee um there was a planned increase over the last starting in 2022 through 2025.

So now we're at our kind of standard increased linkage fee amount from here on out every year annually, it'll be adjusted based on in placement inflation in the consumer price index.

Um so since 2022, this is through 2025.

There were 21 investments that host made totaling over 48 million dollars and resulting in um over a thousand affordable units.

Um, and this is a list of those projects um all across the city.

This image is the Hattie McDaniels at 29th in Walton, um, which is one of the these many projects that were it benefited from linkage fee investment in the last few years.

Yeah.

Well, thank you very much.

Uh, we have everybody in the queue.

So let's go ahead and get started with council president Sandoval.

Thank you.

Um, I was not trying to laugh at you all, but when you showed that first slide, um as one of the sponsors, it literally took up every other week an hour and a half meeting.

Yes, so Robin and I would meet um, yeah, on that slide.

Councilman Kaniche and I would meet by ourselves, and then we'd have an hour and a half meeting with CPD and host, like I think almost every week.

And then every other week, Rob and I would meet with the lawyers.

And so when I I was looking at this, I was laughing because my office moved from my daughter's bedroom to my basement to my kitchen table, then finally down to my office on Platte Street because it was all during COVID.

And this was all when people of color were dying, and we were running vaccine clinics.

So to see this timeline, I don't think I've seen this ever before.

No wonder I felt old someday.

Like honestly, because that was a huge lift.

So thank you.

I'm so glad I saw that.

Sorry, um, just real quick.

It did the producer is this up on um online.

They're wondering they can't see it.

Yeah, if you did they go back, yeah.

The timeline slide.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'm gonna put this in a workbook and send that to Robin.

Okay, you're gonna literally text this technique to be like, hey, I for the first time they've seen this.

So um, and then I just think it should be also noted that 23, 24, 25, those were all city council actions again that led to more conversation, more meetings, and um we can't do that.

I think it should be noted in that slide because you CPD doesn't have the ability to extend those because just yesterday um we got information about a new text amendment that's coming out that I'll be a sponsor for, and so it's important for us to understand, and for the development community to understand that this is like the way it's administered is on your guys on the on the administration, but all of the most of these actions are also all city council actions, um, because that's also I was the sponsor of all three of those as the sponsor of the um original one.

So that slide is like huge.

So thank you.

My second question is if you could go to two slides ahead.

Nope, one more other way, yep.

It was it was the slide that one, yeah.

So I think this is a fascinating slide.

I don't I think this is the first time we've seen this slide.

Um of the unit count, and so when like what was our metrics of success, like right.

I think about going up back as a policymaker, right?

And what were my metrics of success of having gone and worked on this so extensively was that 43% counts like that 43 in unit sizes between 20 and 99?

Because we were like, oh my gosh, are we making a mistake by going from inclusionary housing to 10 units and what was the unintended consequence of that gonna be, right?

And we're already I won't even unpack what's happening in CPD and unlocking housing choices, but that's huge.

That actually shows who's the person who did the Nexus study?

What's their name?

Root policy, policies that that analysis was actually accurate.

That's what their analysis predicted in the root study that led in the first slide to the foundation of us working on EHA.

So thank you for this because I've been wanting to see this information.

I just haven't I know you guys all have been working on it.

So the it high impact development.

The six of them, how many of them are outside of like the high impact area of Cherry Creek and downtown or negotiated?

Is that make sense?

Um, because is that when these are the high impact developments?

Or do you mean the ones who are doing the height incentive?

No, like if the yellow ones on the map are all of our high impact developments.

Okay.

Um and those, so those because we don't have an we have areas that are high impact downtown in Cherry Creek, right?

High market, okay, high market.

So high impact are the yellow ones that we negotiated outside.

So the 10 plus acre sites or those using um public financing.

And then do you have a dot that looks at height incentives if high incentives have been used?

We know it's not a different map color.

Um about 28% of the projects that have come through are using the high incentive, and you know, it would be a good question to say where is that happening.

That would be a good practice to do for a heat map, right?

Because we can actually see is are they building being built across the um high frequency corridors that we actually implemented them along, right?

Because you know I did that amendment that took away less parking.

Now we have no parking requirements.

So is was that um because the whole premises of this policy was carrots and incentives, like we wanted to give incentivize.

So are our incentives working now that one of the major incentives was actually parking.

Now that we don't have that as a carrot anymore, we might have to go read back and reevaluate that, right?

Because that was an incentive, especially along those high um the the high whatever frequency corridors.

Yeah, okay.

So then if you go to the next slide, the next one after that, so these ones are high impact development.

Okay, I think it's the test flight.

10 plus acre sites, yeah.

This is our fee and Lou.

Yeah.

So these are in the fee and Lou that we've gotten just that are we literally checks in the bank, right?

No, these are committed or where the affordable housing plan has been signed.

Or actually, John, you can go ahead.

Yeah, um, you can see agreement status.

So the recorded ones are the ones that have completed their SDP and now they are in like building permit review and they have to pay it at the end of building permit review.

But they pretty much locked in that they want to pay the fee in lieu.

The others felt comfortable enough that they were willing to sign it.

They're still currently having their SDPs reviewed.

And so, you know, we have we have had projects change their mind like halfway through SDP review, but most of the ones that we would say are signed and recorded, we do expect to get the fee and lo, but it might be years ago.

Is willing to carry that two million in their performa if they haven't paid it, right?

I mean that's so all of that.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, if you go to the um more no baby back, the first one.

Yeah, so these are again they haven't paid, but this is the expectation within the year, hopefully, right?

And it depends on the status of this plan review.

Some of them are very close, some of them are very early, but we've only had one project actually pay.

Okay, so then my last question is for all of these projects, which ones are eligible to go through the permitting review process that I always forget.

I always call it iHeart, or a housing radio.

But it's AHR.

Um, how many of these those projects have gone through a heart?

None of them, none of them.

Yeah, I currently A Heart does have an eligibility criteria for compliance with the enhanced option of mandatory affordable housing, but we've had too much demand from our LITEC projects to accept any standard PHA development.

So, how many um lie tech projects are in a heart?

100% of them.

I mean, there's a couple others, like Jeff Shannon.

Do we have a number?

Do we have like a number that we're projects are currently under review?

Currently under review.

Yeah, I don't have that.

Typically, we have anywhere between like 10 and 12 active projects at a time.

Okay, the majority of those are all I tech.

We've had I think three to date, three or four, like Jeff Shanahan does the ownership and does not do li tech.

We've had um two thousand Welton, which I think is a divita, you know, uh housing, kind of more mixed use, and then something on West Eighth, that was also uh mixed rate development, plus a couple of Adam Burger projects that are okay like income restricted but not fully LITEC.

So, so then my last thought food for thought is um as if you go back to that last slide of uh I can't.

I I haven't pulled it up the what you saw prior, the 2021 to 20.

The number of agreements, yeah.

We're going the wrong way.

John's first slide.

No, that John's the last one, it was 2021 from 2025.

That big total, it was 48.

Oh, gotcha.

Sorry, yep.

Yeah, so if we're projecting, if you have you done any projections, like compared to that prior, right?

And now that things are in 2025, we've got some more.

So I'm 2020.

So we actually have a like the most amount.

Yeah.

What would our projections be?

Are they gonna outpace each other?

Is the policy working not only for unit count, but actually for also fee and loo would be fascinating for me to see.

Does that make sense?

Mm-hmm.

We've like our projections are less based off of like this and more based off of just the idea that in a typical year between 2015 and 2025, 5,000 units in Denver were, I think 4,500 units in Denver were permitted like on average.

Because it's a, you know, the the outcomes of EHA really depend on what's going on in like the housing market, and so we project 500 units a year to have like signed agreements based off of 4,500 units a year going through permitting and needing to provide 8% of units on site.

And so that's it's it's not necessarily about like when we do our projections for like host goals.

Yeah, it's not so much about like what are we seeing in the development.

Well not so much how are people responding to the policy, but just like what is the broader context of development because we're kind of just riding on the momentum of the housing market in terms of how many units we get.

If it's in a down year for development in general, then we're gonna see fewer EHA units come online.

If it's a great year for development, we're gonna see more come online.

But anecdotally looking at the weekly list of concepts that get submitted, I would say we would be on track with similar development patterns, similar mix of product type, that sort of thing, like very closely following um the effective date for EHA.

Most projects that came in were commercial or the one to nine unit product type, and now it's very much back to a 600 unit apartment complex, a 300 unit of five-unit townhome, a commercial, like it's back, the spread.

And that's what the but we were we got the root policy paper next to site before COVID, right?

So we kind of did.

We uh we're like uh we don't know what's gonna happen.

Um, but we were already in so in it to win it, and the state policy had changed that we just councilman Kenich and I felt like we had to move forward with it, and that we we needed to use that momentum from the state um changing there to springboard what we had been doing because it'd already been queued up and then unbeknownst to us that COVID happened, and I don't see recovery from COVID.

Like, I mean, I think we could, but I think there's tariffs.

There's so many market factors right now and economic factors that it's really hard to do these projections.

So thank you.

So digging in.

This is great information.

And if I have any other questions, I'll make sure to follow up.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great, thank you.

Um, we can tell this is that makes you shine.

You love this.

Oh, this is great.

Okay, council member uh Sawyer.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, thanks you guys.

Really appreciate this information.

Um I'm trying to like figure out in my head how there is so much development in district five and no dots on the map, and it's because all of those developers filed before or during the extension periods, yeah.

Yes, largely.

Okay.

Yeah, like we could always try to map concepts or SDPs in progress, right?

But that's only a snapshot of it in time.

Well no, these are projects that are being built right now, right?

So they're properly.

I think there's only one on there that well, two, Cherry Creek West, um, but the other one is the that 38 that was on slide eight, that's the Waldorf, yeah.

I think so.

Yeah, I think so.

It is the condos, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

And then what I don't see on there is a four seasons that is gonna be on the corner of third and clayton, um, between second and third on Clayton.

So curious whether you've had a conversation with them yet.

Why do you look confused?

There's a newspaper articles about it.

No, I don't, I I think we I think that probably was included in the list of things.

We probably just have to pipeline, but we just aggregated it, but this is all a spreadsheet.

We can go look at that specific project.

I think they're on there, but I think it's a draft agreement, not a like signed agreement.

Not a signed agreement.

Okay, okay.

I might be wrong about that, but we can check and get back to you.

Yeah, no, that's fine, and it's new relatively, right?

So I feel like there's a DP, right?

There's only one project in Cherry Creek that is listed on there right now on the little dot thing that's outside of Cherry Creek West, and there's a lot more going on there than that.

So we can update this periodically because the dots will change over time, but yeah, for sure.

And yeah, um, the other development that is uh happening, all of the other development that is happening in district five, um, is development where the rezonings were associated with it, and so we negotiated um with you guys, and then the property owners' agreements because it was before the EHA was in place, and there was like no way for council to ensure that we were gonna get affordable housing out of this because we didn't have the EHA yet, and so there's like all these agreements out there from like 2019, 2020, maybe even 2021 where it's just property owners signing and recording agreements with hosts for a certain percentage affordable.

Um, and I know you guys said you didn't track that on here, but a lot of those um have been frozen due to financing reasons over time and are maybe like now starting to roll out.

Um, an example of that would be the United Properties property over on USMB in Lowry Boulevard.

They're finally starting to build that rate, and that is 80% at uh 10% of the units at 80% affordability because that's what we negotiated with them back then.

So I'm just curious whether, like, are we keeping a running tab on those the way we are on these ones?

Um, because it would be great to know that, like, we're to be able to say, like, even though those aren't on here, they're getting built now, and they do have affordability components to them.

Yeah, there's a whole spectrum of agreements that we have, build alternative plans, affordable housing agreements that have different structures that were kind of helped us get to the point of launching EHA, you know, these different and the 38th and Blake Overlay area.

There's a lot of um, I think work at the city that that informed this, and we do have all that data about kind of where projects are, we could compile it to show where some of the previous agreements, you know, how many units they are and where they are in the world.

That would be awesome to be able to see.

I don't know that we need like a whole committee on it, but if there's a way for you guys to just send those numbers to all of city council, um, you know, I recognize it will take a little time to pull that together.

But like, I get it.

I got it, we don't need it tomorrow.

But um, if you could get it, I think it would be really helpful for us to be able to see um just because it's very hard with the like stuff that's coming online now that um made it in by the EHA deadline and then extended extended, and the stuff that's coming online now that we did before the EHA existed, um, you know, one day, a decade from now, we will only just talk about the EHA and what is being built under the EHA, but like in this weird in-between time, it's it would be nice to be able to capture that data a little bit more granularly for a district like mine where there are two dots, but there are way more um things coming online under you know, it's just that they're not reflected on your dots.

Yeah, yeah.

That's great.

Okay, thank you.

And then what is the definition of high impact?

I'm just trying to kind of wrap my mind around that because I am a little concerned that there's so much development in Cherry Creek and it is a high land value area under the EHA, but is not considered high impact.

Um, right, same with downtown.

Though those are the two high land value areas where we have a situation like we just saw the rezoning in Green Valley Ranch, where it's because of the size, it is considered high impact.

And so I think I'm curious what that definition is because I'm wondering if we need to take a look at that.

So a high impact development is defined in the code as um a site that's 10 or more acres or that has public financing, like a TIF district or metropolitan district.

Um, so those and those kind of are a special category within EHA and within the code.

The high market areas, um, you know, are defined because of their market.

Land value.

Land value, and and those um are required to provide additional affordable housing through standard EHA, like their base EHA compliance instead of 8% of units and 60% AMI, it's 10% of units, and then same for for sale and okay.

Um so they just off the bat are required to provide additional um affordable housing.

Or dollars.

Or dollars.

So they're buying out of the affordable housing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, and then at what point do they pay?

Because you guys said that only one person is only one team has paid so far.

Yeah.

At the time of building permit issuance.

Huh, interesting.

Okay, so there's only one that's actually being built in this moment.

Well, right.

They pulled their permit, and the rest of them we've added the fee to the permit.

They're still in plan review, and then sometimes they do sit and wait because of market changes and financing, and then like, you know, ball arena, for example, they have a whole different structure, but they don't have a site planned in for review yet.

So we know what their commitment is, but they won't get to even paying that until they're a building permit.

Right, but like the Weldorfer is being built.

Are they the ones who paid?

Because they should have paid by now.

If they're paying in the linkage fee of 2.2 million dollars and they have shovels in the ground, they should have paid you by now.

I'd have to check the address.

Because if it's only one, like that's concerning, unless it's them.

It's not them.

They don't have their SDP completed yet.

So I don't know if they have an excavation per.

I don't know if you can do an excavation permit before your SDP is complete, but that's probably like they're doing site work while they are finishing up their planning process.

Oh, maybe just the demolition.

So if their SDP is complete, which talks about like the vertical development, then we'll record their plan and they'll have to pay it before they can start building.

So it's a time of vertical development, not a time of horizontal development or demolition of what was already there.

At minimum, the foundation permit if they phase it is when they would pay.

Um that's interesting.

Okay, good to know.

Um, and then on the last slide, there was 48 million dollars of investment.

Can you confirm for me that whether we are paying prevailing wage on all of the city's investment of for affordable housing projects at 48.287 million dollars?

Um, our our current sort of understanding with the city attorney's office is that the host investments into projects do not um make them required to comply with prevailing wage.

I wrote our prevailing wage law, and it is very clear that prevailing wage does in fact apply to affordable housing projects.

So this is a real problem because it sounds to me like the city attorney's office has decided not to enforce a law that we wrote and that this mayor signed, and that is not okay.

We're currently sort of in conversations with the between the city attorney and the auditor's office just to get clarity so that we can apply um the policy, is or the law is required.

So we can certainly find it.

Well, the law is very clear, so I'm not sure why more clarity would be needed.

We can follow up with you based on those conversations.

Great.

Sounds like plan.

I'm good, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Albitris.

Thank you.

And yes, we did ask that for best value contracting, and we were told by host that they can do, so that is wrong.

I'm grateful for your leadership on that.

Um, thank you for all this information.

It's really great.

I, you know, have been frustrated in district seven specifically with the lack of ability to add some density.

We have some really big upzoned areas that were Dura projects all around the soccer stadium.

The soccer stadium's nine acres of a 60 acre site.

There's the Alameda station as well, which is both transit-oriented development.

It overlin has actually been the most successful, which wasn't Dura, which is interesting, which is where some of those dots are.

Um, I think that EHA compounded by the interest and other things halted hundreds of units of housing in that area, and so I'm curious how we can work to actually turn that dirt into something because it is just, you know, it it divides community, it breaks apart my district, and there's just huge swaths, and instead of developers using this already upzoned land that's just sitting there, they rather look for small homes to tear down and build up.

So I'm curious if you're thinking about all of that dirt that we have that hasn't been developed that is ready.

Yeah, we can talk.

I don't know if I know about all the specific parcels, but there's a lot of land around there that already has existing kind of development agreements and affordable housing commitments on site.

Um that was pre-HA, so that's sort of as council member Sawyer was talking about, um, those sites that already have pre-existing commitments that require them to build um affordable housing.

We don't have a mechanism to sort of incentivize or enforce them to actually develop, right?

Well, you have those dollars, right?

Yeah, we invested.

We have investments for affordable housing.

So when there's affordable housing, host has funds that we can invest in, and we can strategically sort of look geographically at you know target areas and areas, for example, that don't have affordable housing.

Um, I know like archway for the Broadway, yeah, over there by the soccer stadium is prime, 100% affordable that it has not been built, so yeah, just would like to see some more effort from host and like turning that dirt into something useful for community other than the soccer stadium.

Uh, but anyway, um that's great.

Uh I what I would like to see, I really appreciate the breakout that council president was mentioning 43%, 25%.

I would like to see what the fee income is, where is it coming from?

Is it coming from high impact developments?

Is it coming from single family homes?

I would say also that, you know, in my district in the west side of my district where the homes are still somewhat affordable.

There's a lot of people that want to build on because the homes, my home was 780 square feet when I purchased it, and that linkage fee is killing them.

And so I'm curious, has there been explored an exception for home or owners or longtime homeowners to not have to pay that extra fee, because I don't think there are target market for that fee revenue.

So I would like to see a breakout of where the free revenue is coming from, how much of it is single family to 10 or 9 units, and then how much is otherwise?

That would be great.

And has that ever been talked about or has that concern been raised before?

Yeah, we've definitely looked at sort of linkage fee and where it's coming from, and um, I don't have the exact numbers, but there is pretty significant percentage of it that comes from the one to nine unit residential development.

Um, and any addition onto a like a home that's 700 square feet.

If you have if you build an addition that's less than 400 square feet, then there's no language fee required.

There's no linkage fee required if what?

Of an addition that's less than 400 square feet.

So if you're building like a small, not even, then you'd pay no linkage fee.

If you're building a house or an addition that's less than 1600 square feet, you pay a lower amount, a lower rate.

If you're building a home that's larger than 1600 square feet, the per square foot rate is higher.

So we sort of ask more of larger homes.

Um we charge less or like ask less of smaller homes.

Is there a linkage fee for ADUs?

There's no linkage fee for ADUs.

Okay, yeah.

Um, good to know.

Um slide 11.

Hold on.

I I was looking at this and I was curious.

Well, it would be helpful.

I appreciate the income restricted units to know how many actual market rate units are correlated to that.

And then for the percentage, isn't there a standard number if you have 10 units of how many units need to be affordable?

Yeah, the sort of base compliance is eight percent of units if if they're provided at 60% AMI for rental, or um 12% of units if they're provided at an income average of 70% AMI.

So you have to provide more if your AMI is higher, but the kind of base is 8% of so how do you get like such a small percentage of like 10 units?

So that in that case it would be one unit, you know.

And if it's if it's 1.5, we round up.

If it's you know 1.4, we round down.

So you have that base um range of percentage, and uh you use that as a negotiation for the income.

Is that how you do that?

For standard EHA, we don't do negotiation.

It's just the there's the developer can pick their compliance path, and that was part of the EHA model is to make it kind of clear and predictable, and you know, for our high end high impact, those large 10 plus acre sites, we do negotiate.

They're much more kind of diverse sites, a lot more um potential for different kinds of um community benefits on the single site or let's like project base, it's just a it's like a pretty um simple form that the developer fills out where they choose their compliance path.

So they kind of check whether they want 8% at 60% or 12% at 70%, or fee and loo, um, and they can you know they call host, we can talk through the options, um, but it's a standard known kind of obligation, okay.

And then on slide five, um, what I appreciate like lumping 2022 to 2024 together, but it would be helpful to see that broken out, and then obviously 2025 was a huge increase.

What do you credit for that increase?

Uh I think almost entirely that we had so many projects that wanted to get in before the policy went into effect or into the grace period.

So if you look at like any graph of project submittals, you know, May 2022, there was just like four times as many as we would normally see, and because so many developers said okay, we're gonna do our Denver projects in May 2022.

Then there was kind of a dearth of project submissions, and now we're seeing it kind of utilize back a little bit more to like what we what it looked like before 2022.

So it was really just the application numbers would be great to see that recovery because that's been something that I have personally been very worried about.

Um I think that we've been very successful at adding units, and that has helped with rents, but curious about how that's gonna play out into the future.

Um, and then lastly, can you tell me a little bit more about how the fee and lie is calculated?

It seems like almost a standard 290-ish for the townhomes.

Is that based on the value or just the square footage?

Based on the market area as well as um what their complete like so if it's 8% or 10% or whatever their standard contribution would have been, it's the number of IRUs times the multiplying factor, which today is 290,000 in one option, it's higher in the high market areas, etc.

So if I have two IRUs 290 times two, that's it's it's a formula.

Oh okay, great.

And and you said it's based on the market, is it the market of that particular neighborhood or area?

So typical versus high.

So what typical versus high market areas?

Okay.

So you have the city broken out into typical and high market areas.

I'd love to see that map.

Yeah.

We can share that map.

And Council President Sannibal might be able to add some context too.

On the EHA website, and so we did downtown temper and Cherry Creek.

It's the only two areas.

Oh, and then you have so it's is it so it doesn't change based on the market?

No, it's just literally that's the title of that area, and then you pay more.

The fees are different.

Your neighborhood and my neighborhood and everything, and it's a clearly delineated map.

Oh, great, awesome.

That's all I have.

Okay, that that's confusing because we keep saying market.

It's not based on the market.

It's not like the market, like the real estate market, it's literally just the name of the map.

Okay, yeah.

And that map is updated annually based on some like factors on that map is updated.

Okay, based on what the market area map is updated every three years, it's last updated in 2025 based on land values, okay, and then the fee and loo changes annually as well, just like the linkage fee does, it escalates per inflation as well.

And that was consumer price index that you use for that one, great, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Um, thank you.

Uh, we're gonna go online with council member Lewis.

Hi, thank you.

So most of my questions have been taken care of, and I really appreciate this.

Um the session has actually been incredibly impactful um and informational.

I do I do have one question on slide six.

One of the things, and I maybe I just want you to tell me the story here just to make sure I understand.

Um, because as I look at this, it looks like my district is in, and I mean like Park Hill, East Colfax, Montbello, um, Central Park, um, Northfield, only have one project in here, and I imagine that maybe it's just how the map is displayed, and less about there actually being um projects in district eight.

A lot of it might be about like a similar situation to District 5 where there may have been development submitted prior to uh EHA coming online.

I will say anecdotally just looking at it, there's a lot of development going on in Central Park, but it is already under the Central Park development agreement that was signed in 2001, and so that wouldn't appear on this map because of the pre-existing agreement.

Um the development in Northfield, that's a high impact development that's gonna result in several thousand units or I think 1,200 units.

Um yeah, I don't I don't have a very good specific answer as to why there's a big blank space there, but it is likely due to uh development coming online that is not subject to this policy yet.

Thank you.

Can we find out what what the story is here?

I just would be curious, and if I was a constituent watching this, I'd be I'd look at this map and have a few inquiries for my council member as well as for host, and so if we could maybe dig in a bit more um to better paint the picture of what is and what isn't happening um in this regard, I'd really appreciate it.

Absolutely thank you.

That's it, thank you.

Um the next person in queue is council member Torres.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We can stay on slide six.

I do have a question about that one.

Um just to um clarify for my mind, signed agreements, draft agreements, are those all projects uh with um EHA units being built online, or do they all do it also include projects where they they opted for fee and loo?

This includes the fee and lee projects as well, which okay?

But you know, 52 out of the 60 that you see on here are building on site.

Okay, good, thank you.

And then um, if you can go to slide 12 where you talk about the uh investment projects where we've uh provided funding from that fee and loo source.

Um do you have any sense?

I think like ultimately what I'm curious about is are the places where we are um uh receiving fee and lie seeing those dollars reinvested in those same neighborhoods, or are they being like really spread all over the place?

Just curious if um these 21 projects could be uh mapped for me, just so I can overlay it.

Um we can definitely map these.

Um these are linkage fee um payments, so they're okay.

They're not fee and loo.

Yeah, we haven't actually invested fee and loo back into affordable housing projects yet.

Um there it's a it's set up in the DRMC as a special revenue fund, and the first um kind of commitment of those dollars is to reimburse C CPD for the um incentive um fees that go towards um EHA units.

Um, and so once we have a surplus, um then we will begin to invest them into affordable housing projects, and we can track where those are um other.

That's a great reminder, yeah.

Thank you for that.

Yeah.

No, thank you.

Um I I taught that at the end of Councilman Sawyer's um inquiry as well.

Okay, perfect.

Um, I don't think I have other questions.

I may follow up just on the uh linkage fee projects, but thank you all so much.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um I actually do have a few questions as well.

Uh, one of them uh is about on slide eight, let's see if we can go to slide eight, thank you.

If I understand this correctly, so a lot of a lot of the fee and loo projects are townhomes, condom condominiums.

You have rental apartments, but are the townhomes and condominiums are most of these for sale units that have been built, like are for ownership, excuse me.

Yeah, most of the ones that are paying the fee and loo are gonna be for sale.

Um, and that's uh this is kind of what I was saying before with council asking council president Sandoval, jump in if you have extra context.

But the way that the fee and lie was determined was based off of this thing called the affordability gap method, which yeah, so it's kind of like the math wasn't mapping, yeah.

I'll throw myself under the bus.

Well, no, I'm not, I'm not throwing anybody under the bus, but it's just uh, Rob and I were trying to figure it out.

We were like, all right.

It's a comp, it's super complicated.

It is, and there's just a nuance between like what a town home sells for compared to a condominium unit.

You kind of have to pick one or the other when you're making policy has to be to a certain extent of broader brush.

You can't make a policy for each specific like development.

And so the way that the fee and loo was determined was by taking a look at like what are we selling these for at their affordable price?

What would they be selling for at a market rate price?

What is that gap?

And then that gap was used to basically establish the fee and loo.

And so, say if you're not if you're not selling this unit for market price, you're probably selling it for 275,000 dollars less.

So we're gonna make this fee 290,000 to kind of try to push you to put the units on site rather than paying out.

But for town homes, the the math wasn't mathing so much, and so the the gap is actually bigger, and so it's worth it to them to pay the fee and loo so they can sell it for more than two hundred and ninety thousand dollars of a difference, and um so it's a it's a difference in the product type, and that's why you see a specific product type, and I think I think route policy probably also like anticipated that in their initial report, but it's just you can't get so granular at some point, you know.

Sure.

I guess there's um I think of what is naturally occurring affordability within my district and it's town homes and condos, and I always it's it the math, like you said, the math isn't mathing, or we need to be able to figure out what that gap is for people to be able to get into the market.

Um, and I think that that is what missing middle, or that's that is a whole other way of thinking about people being able to build their um their equity and in getting into the market and not have to rent um continuously forever.

Um, and I just had noticed that the town home, so I'm like, oh, we're also not making it an affordable way for or incentivizing or having those incentives for people to be able to get into maybe something that's a little bit more affordable early on in a smaller um uh house size or home size, yeah.

Yeah, and you know, as if you kind of look at the these two slides together, so we have about 15 projects or less than 20 units, those are almost all townhome projects, so 15 townhome projects of those six of them are paying the fee and leave.

So there are townhome projects that are coming online that are providing affordable units.

We just see them disproportionately opting out of that.

Thank you.

Um, and then could we go back to slide?

I think it's slide eleven.

Ah, thank you.

Um just help me understand this a little bit more.

There's I'm gonna specifically look at the Monaco, the 3699 South Monaco.

My understanding is that entire um hotel conversion is affordable units, so um, this is an Atomberger project, and he does typically income restrict the whole development, but at higher AMIs than would comply with mandatory affordable housing.

So he still had to sign an agreement and do the 13 units at 60% AMI.

So, yes, the rest of the development may be income restricted, it just doesn't comply with this policy, so we don't count those units um as an outcome.

Okay, all right.

Those are the only ones that we actually have a covenant on.

The rest he might be doing the rest of the development because that's how he works, but okay, great.

I appreciate that clarity.

Um, I was wondering because I've like, I thought the whole thing was cool.

Exactly.

Um, so that's it's the nuance that you have all been talking about earlier.

Um I don't have any other questions, um, but do we have any other anybody had want to come in for a second one?

Are we all good?

Good.

Okay, I think we're all good.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

Um, and I believe we'll be looking forward to some of the follow-up emails that will be sent.

Uh we only have, I think, three items on consent, and if there's no objections, good.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you.