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.

Oh, we're on air.

Okay, great.

Um, welcome to the community planning and housing committee of Denver City Council.

Today is apparently March 10th.

Um it is 1 30 in the afternoon, and we have um a rezoning to start with, and then we'll be hearing a development retrospective from host.

I'm Sarah Parody, I'm one of your two council members at large and the chair of the committee, um, and we'll introduce the other council members starting on my left.

Good afternoon, Florida Vidres, lucky to strike seven.

Uh good afternoon, Paul Cashman, South Denver District 6.

Good afternoon, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Hi, Amanda Sawyer, just surprised.

Great.

And I think we are ready to hear about this rezoning.

Awesome.

Um my name is Abner Ramos Altello.

I'm with Community Planning and Development, and I'm here to present the case for uh 4211 North Hooker Street.

They are requesting to rezone from PUD547 to USUC C06.

Here's a quick outline for the presentation.

As many of many of you are familiar, we'll go through the request, the location and context, existing conditions, then we'll talk about the process to date, and then lastly, we'll review uh the review criteria for this rezoning.

So here's an aerial image of the property itself.

It's on the corner of uh North Hooker Street and 42nd Avenue.

It is 12,500 square feet.

And currently on the site, there is a single unit home and a detached garage.

So this property is located in Council District 1, which is represented by councilwoman uh Amanda Sandoval.

It is in the Berkeley neighborhood, and the existing zoning is uh PUD547 and is surrounded entirely by USUC C06.

The proposed rezoning is to go to USU C06.

The reason for this is to be aligned with the uh need to protect the residential neighborhood character of the area.

Uh the property itself is meeting the minimum lot size of 5,500 square feet, and the allotted building forms would be the urban house and the detached accessory dwelling unit.

The conservation overlay is meant to preserve the single uh single and two-story scale of the neighborhood, so sort of these bungalow structures.

This is a graphic example of what I had previously stated about the allowed building forms being urban house and uh the tenant house, which is not applicable to this property given the uh exception stated in section 1235b.

The land use for the property itself is single unit.

It's surrounded by predominantly single unit.

There are some two unit and multi-unit uses as you go north along North Hooker Street.

However, it's primarily single unit.

In blue, we have the neighboring properties to the north, and red is the property itself.

There are a significant amount of trees surrounding the property, so there's not a clear image, but it is uh consistent with the surrounding scale and context of the area.

The process to date, they had their informational uh their informational notice back in December of uh this past year.

They recently went a planning board a month ago, and then they've noticed for this um hearing uh a couple weeks ago.

The planning board hearing unanimously voted to move this to consideration by full council, and the censorship date has been changed from 420 to 427 uh as requested by the council office.

So public comments to date, the only two comments uh that stand out are from the ROs.

One is a letter from Harkness Heights Neighborhood Association.

They were mostly concerned about the CO6, the conservation overlay, which this application uh was amended, and it does include the conservation overlay now.

And then uh Berkeley Regis United Neighbors, uh they attended the meeting uh that they hosted, and they receive support from the uh members.

Uh other than that, there have been no public comments received.

So the review criteria starting with consistency with adoptive plans, then moving to the other two.

First up is conference of plan 2040.

The application itself meets uh a number of strategies, mostly focused on info development, housing diversity, and then ensuring that there's a mix of housing types in the area.

For Blueprint Denver, it's consistent with the future neighborhood context guidance, which states that it should be urban.

It's consistent with the uh future place guidance, stating that it should be residential low.

And then lastly, the growth area strategy states that it should be all other areas of the city, which is accommodating to uh single units and accessory dwelling units.

In addition to that, there are some strategies that stand out that we should call out.

First of all, is the need to rezone properties from former Chapter 59 to the current Denver zoning code.

So that's what this property would be doing by rezoning from PUD547 to USUC C06.

In addition to that, this property addresses equity by increasing the development affordable housing and mixed uh housing types near transit services and amenities.

So this area is near uh federal and a number of bus lines.

Similarly, it addresses climate by uh providing a diversity of housing units near uh transit, which could uh contribute to redu uh reducing uh greenhouse gas emissions.

This can this application is consistent and meets the public interest by rezoning to uh meet the plan guidance, and then lastly, consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent statements.

This property does meet the uh neighborhood context statement, the purpose and intent statements to promote the uh promote their residential neighborhood and the character of the area.

Based on the criteria for review in the Denver zoning code, staff recommends that the committee move application 2025 rezone 00000 uh 16 uh forward for consideration by the full city council.

Okay.

Um I have a queue starting with and solely consisting of Councilmember Torres.

So far.

All right.

Thank you, Avner.

Um so the PUD for the property was as a theater.

Correct.

Was it a commer was it commercial or always also a home?

It was uh so the structure itself, the building form was a single unit.

However, the basement was used for the Victoria uh Victorian uh playhouse.

Uh and that's what the PUD was written for to permit the Victoria Playhouse to remain in the single unit uh structure.

However, that use is no longer being uh used in the area, so they're just considering just getting rid of the PUD since it's state has a lot of uh limitations on what the accessory dwelling unit could be.

So it was limiting the what the detached garage could be, and it also limited the amount of uh uses in the structure, limiting the uh housing to only the upper floors and not to the basement.

Got it.

So this rezoning would be consistent with removing that entirely as a use, or they could still use it as a playhouse.

Uh they would remove the use, yeah.

No longer uh allowed to have the Victorian Playhouse in the Okay, thank you.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

I just um could you say a little bit more about the conservation overlay and what that adds?

I'm not as familiar with it as well.

So this conservation overlay uh in the staff uh in the staff report, I outlined some of the requirements, but it mostly focuses on the height, uh, the uh frontage, and then the scale of the actual structure.

So it has to be sort of single to two unit scale.

And uh I'll have to check the staff report for additional context, but I think it also focuses on just uh the setbacks and the and the porch itself in the front.

Um I don't have any other questions.

Anybody else need to get in queue?

All right, well, that was easy peasy.

Um can I get a motion in a second?

I'll move second, move by Alvedra, seconded by Taurus.

Everybody thumbs up.

All right.

We will see you back at council.

Thank you for that.

Sorry, we're gonna do that.

Lightning quick.

Okay, and we'll give hosts a minute to get up to the table and get settled.

I know we have a number of folks joining us, which is great.

Thank you.

All we're excited for this.

Um, we try to do these um development updates quarterly, and hopefully that's aspirational, and we don't quite get there.

So I know we have a lot to cover today.

Do you guys want to all introduce yourselves and um yeah, and start with the slides, and I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh, and we appreciate you all having us.

Alex Marcasi, rental housing development manager at host.

Laura Allen Hatcher, housing development officer host.

Kendra Garrett, housing development officer with host.

Michael Davis, housing development officer and host.

So um today we're gonna run through the seven projects that were closed from July 2025 to February 2026, as you mentioned.

This is a lot of details, a lot of projects.

We're gonna do our best to kind of quickly go through them to leave as much time for your questions as possible.

Um we invested approximately 27 million dollars of local and federal funds across these projects, uh preserving or helping create 658 units of affordable housing, um, of which almost 20% were reserved for extremely low-income folks, people making 30% AMI or less, um, and 23% uh were three-bedroom or larger units.

So, with that, we'll get started running through it with Laura with Beelor Park Flats.

Great, thanks.

Again, as Alex mentioned, the first project up is Bueller Park Flats.

This was approved under resolution 250809.

We uh provided a 2.4.1 million dollar cash flow loan to mile high development.

Um they developed on this site 60 or they are developing on this site 64 units serving a range of AMIs from 30 to 60 percent.

70 percent seven units are 30% AMI, and eight units are three bedrooms.

This one closed in September of 2025, is currently under construction.

Uh as far as the location, you can see here it is near 56th between Boston and Chester, I think is the other one.

Yes, Chester, sorry, in District 8.

And it's directly north of North Rail High School campus.

This is uh phase one of a two-phase project that would be developed on that site.

Uh so this part is gonna be a five-story building, double-loaded corridor, um, adaptable and accessible units, all electric ready.

Um 80% of the units are gonna be two bedrooms.

Um all units have in-unit washers and dryers, some have balconies, and they have lots and lots of community facilities on site, and I'll talk a little bit about some of the community support.

They are uh partnering with an entity called Foundation for Sustainable Urban Communities.

So they'll provide um activities around healthy living, lifelong learning, job skill development, et cetera.

Um the next slide shows the capital stack for the project.

It's a total of uh 27.6 million dollars, so approximately 432,000 per unit.

And then next slide is the is the unit mix, and as I mentioned, 64 total units, seven units at 30% AMI, 51 units are two bedroom, eight are three bedroom, and that is Bueller Park.

The next project is Joshua Station.

This one was approved under resolution 250810.

Um this is a uh previous uh motel that was converted into uh affordable housing um back in 2002.

And host provided a $750,000 loan to Mile High Ministries to repair and replace, as you can see, the rotted walkways that are that would service the the second floor units.

Um let's see.

There are a total of 35 units in the property.

30 units will be 30% AMI and a handful at 50%.

They're all two-bedroom, one-bath units.

This uh this funding closed in October of 2025.

Here on this uh the next slide, you can see the project location off of West Mulberry Place, right along I 25 West 8th Avenue.

Here's a picture of the old uh the old motel as it was back in the day.

It's a two-story structure.

Um, and as you can see, there are the the second floor walkways and stuff.

That's that was the piece that was primarily the issue.

Uh so we are helping replace the second floor concrete and steel walkways and a couple of exterior staircases.

The next few slides kind of give you an idea of what it looks like inside for the units.

Um this is how they uh transition the hotel rooms into uh affordable living units, uh, two bedroom, one bath, like I said.

Um they have a kitchenette and a mini fridge and a microwave in unit.

In the common spaces, they have large dining areas, they have washers and dryers, a large kitchen, and each family has a full-size refrigerator that's supplied to them.

And then Mile High Ministries also provides um a whole slew of support services for the tenants that are living there.

Uh this is a pretty simple capital stack.

It was a small project, over a million dollars.

They did not take any developer fee.

Um, and in fact, they put in a fair amount of their own money to help support the project.

And then last slide.

This is the unit mix as discussed.

Uh 35 total units, 30 at 30% AMI and five at 50.

And then that's the end, and we go next to Lorado Heights Family Apartments.

Thank you.

Um Lower Loder Heights Family Apartments.

Um it was approved on resolution 251275.

It's a Mercy Housing project.

We provided 3.782 million dollars as a cash for loan to the Mercy Housing Mountain Plains for this 100 unit project.

We are in fourth lean position behind their first lender.

We will receive 50% of the cash flow.

Loan payments after the deferred developer fee is paid off.

So payments are expected no later than year 15.

In exchange, we will provide a 60-year covenant on the property.

It's a family-centric property, 100 units, 451 bedrooms, 31 two bedrooms, and 24 three bedrooms, all ranging between 30 and 70% AMI.

This project closed in October 2025, and it is a part of the Loretta Heights campus redevelopment.

It's located in District 2 in the Southwest Harvey Park neighborhood.

Again, will house individuals and families.

That will include a business center, fitness center, picnic area, and then tenant services will be on the bottom floor.

It will be an all-electric building, and then all tenants will receive an RTD Echo Pass.

So this property again is located within the Loretta Heights campus redevelopment.

A little bit of history about that.

It was built in the late 1800s as an educational institution, Colorado Heights University, and then it's no longer KMA University around 2026 2017.

This small area plan was adopted in 2019, and so included in that will be a slew of for sale and a rental housing.

Also a memorial park, a repurposed library, I think a $60 million renovation on the theater, and then community spaces.

So it's gonna be a pretty nice area for future tenants.

And then tenant services will include like adult education, community courses in an after-school tutorial tutor tutoring, yeah, for children on site.

So a mix of lactic equity, um, our funding, um, state funding from C DOH, um, their own personal sponsor loan, and then um developer fee.

The total overall project was $41.5 million dollars and came out to be um $414.5 million or $415 million per unit.

Um, and then for the host, it'd be around $38,000 per unit for host subsidy.

And then our unit mix um for 100 units.

And then we'll go to $1371, Xena.

Uh $1371 Xenia was a preservation project that provided a $900,000 loan and a $100,000 grant to help renovate and preserve essential housing for families and individuals.

Uh the aim of this project was to preserve a critical source of naturally occurring affordable housing.

Uh, this property is located in the heart of the East Colfax neighborhood.

It's home to long-standing residents, many of them immigrant and refugee families.

EC Mint was able to acquire the property and preserve a key source of naturally occurring affordable housing in the community.

Our loan was used to take out their senior loan in retiring the senior loan.

We're providing essential capital for EC Mint to close on similar projects in the East Colfax neighborhood.

Uh on this project, there will be a 60-year covenant on the land with funding coming from property tax for the loan portion and impact investment on the grant.

We're third in lean position with a 1% interest rate for a 30-year term with interest in principle due at the end of the term.

1371 Zenia will be the first project of this kind.

Uh this will be an acquisition project, and their future projects will follow a similar design.

The long-term vision is to preserve affordable housing along East Colfax through acquisition and housing preservation for existing tenants.

EC Mint will manage and develop this project and set the stage to develop a hundred to two hundred and fifty units in the next two years and a thousand units in the next 10 years.

Located in district eight.

This building is in close proximity of educational opportunities, grocery marts, and public transportation is within one mile of several grocery marts, elementary schools, and within close proximity of Lowery Anschutz and along the number 15 bus line for direct access to downtown.

The objectives of EC Mint are to prevent displacement and provide long-term affordability in the East Colfax neighborhood by acquiring low-income properties and utilizing funding to preserve housing affordability.

The current amenities for 1371 Zenia include on-site laundry and a large courtyard with the playground for children in the building, along with 17 parking spaces and units ranging from 500 to 700 square feet.

Since acquiring, they have undergone uh major renovations to address outdated and corrosive piping to improve heating, as well as upgrading their HVAC system and improving energy efficiency.

And finally, in acquiring and preserving EC Mint has helped sustain affordability for two studio apartments, 19 one-bedrooms, and two two-bedroom units for families, individuals between 40% and 50% AMI.

And preserving this property will provide sustained housing stability for the local community and prevent displacement.

Thank you.

Michael, um, I'm gonna spend the least amount of time on Washington because it's been through council and committee quite a number of times, but I do have all the slides here if you want to go back through them later.

Um very quick summary.

Host provided 9.8 million dollars in gap financing for this 170 unit project, which also included a library and uh community serving cafe space.

Um this project closed in December of 2025.

Um host also provided 20 vouchers for the permanent supportive housing units as well as associated services funding.

Um it is located in District 9 on Washington Street in the midst of quite a bit of infrastructure improvements and other city investments, um, a number of community connections and amenities, um 125 total parking spaces, some which are reserved for the library, some reserved for the residents.

Um, and I think one of the most uh exciting things from from my perspective uh was just the amount of green space they were able to incorporate into the project, including outdoor plaza, kind of playground area on the ground floor, and then uh two separate um green spaces on the the podium level on the second floor.

Then here is the unit mix, very large number of uh 30% AMI units, as well as substantial number of three and four bedrooms, um, which is fairly unusual in LITEC developments because of how expensive they are to build and finance, but this was a priority of um the city in our original RFP.

Uh the next project, uh Birch Street Preservation.

Um, here is a picture of the two separate buildings that were involved in this transaction.

Uh total investment of 7.5 million dollars through uh federal funds, um, both home funds from hosts allocation, and then um we are very grateful to our partners in Dido for coming in to help fill out the capital stack with some of their C DBG allocation to make this work.

30-year term, 1% simple interest comes with host standard 60-year covenant.

Um payments are through uh 50% of surplus cash flow beginning in year seven, again, 194 units, uh, a mix of 40, 50, and 60 percent AMIs.

Uh project closed in September of 2025.

A little bit about the location in District 6, the Virginia Vale neighborhood, um, within a half mile of RTD's Colorado Light Rail Station and close to um the Colorado Boulevard um corridor.

Um, extensive amenities.

These buildings were were built in the 1970s, I believe.

There's a billiards room, clubhouse fitness center, sauna, tennis courts, steam room.

Um sounds lovely to be honest.

Uh a lot of parking as well as um storage spaces.

Um minor renovations were needed.

These buildings were actually in really good shape, um, just some energy efficiency and kind of like general juzging of the lobby.

Um the reason we were so interested in supporting this project is the threat of value add developments, which is often how we lose naturally occurring affordable housing, where you have a market rate developer who sees an opportunity to buy a building and then um add uh series and numbers of amenities and really ride increasing rents to make it no longer affordable for the people who are living there originally.

So just a simple example, the kitchen at the project site functional and perfectly fine compared to kitchen at a similar property after value add program, which saw substantial rent increases without that much difference in the amenities.

It's really just aesthetics.

This was a 9% LITEC deal by Gorman and Associates.

Host provided a 2.29 million dollar cash flow loan with a 40-year term and 1% interest rate from linkage fee, approximately just under $32,000 per unit.

60-year covenant, this is a uh very much a family-focused um project with uh large two bedrooms and some three and four bedroom units.

Located in District 10 in the uptown North Cap Hill neighborhood on Pennsylvania.

Um, a lot of gratitude here towards the Colorado Health Foundation, who was a partner for this project, provided the land, um, and is also providing the land for a future phase two project, which is still trying to be developed under consideration for financing.

Um in terms of the building form, again, five-story building, double-loaded corridor.

It has an early childhood education center within it, 50 available parking spaces through on-site and leased parking um next door.

Uh on-site playground.

Um, another uh exciting part about this project is that they are funding ongoing service provisions through Hope Communities through the project's cash flow, so it'll be, or through operating expenses, I should say, so it's much more stable than if it was just from extra money coming out of the project or anything like that.

So it's really baked into the project.

Then here's the uh the unit mix.

Again, 32 of the units will be three and four bedrooms, only eight will be one bedrooms, um, a mix of 30 through 80% AMI as an income averaging LITEC deal.

Um with that, we're done with our presentation.

Thank you very much for your ongoing support for affordable housing and happy to answer any questions you may have.

That was action-packed, and I just um these are such great presentations to get because it just makes me so grateful for all the work that goes in and for I mean, I know it's it goes back years, right, to getting the things funded, and um I know how hard these things are to be off the ground.

It's just pretty cool to be in a city where we play a role in it.

So thank you all so much for that work.

Um I have a cue started with some council members and more getting in every moment.

Um, starting with council member Alvidres.

Thank you, Committee.

Yes, this is great information for us to have.

One of the things that I thought we were gonna get a briefing on soon was the housing needs assessment.

And so I'm curious like where we are with that, just so that we have something to compare these outcomes for the number of units and percentages are in relation to that goal.

I see Laia hopping up to the mic.

Good afternoon, council members.

I'm Lia Mitchell, the director of development and catalytic partnerships.

Um we are actively working on the housing needs assessment.

I know we have a briefing in April, uh, April 7th, I believe, um with this body, so we can definitely go into more depth there.

Um the housing needs assessment will help shape hosts strategic plan and ongoing action plans, which may, for example, when applied to our rental development, could you know shift our strategy around understanding number of bedrooms or AMIs needed or special populations who need additional services.

So the housing needs assessment will help inform some of our decision making around which projects we select as moving forward.

And so seeing that 70 a little bit over 75 probably percent of all these units are one and two bedroom is something I want to continue to ask questions about and how we are using our leverage to one make sure that we're having more bedrooms, and two, I am disappointed to see how much is at the 30% AMI, which is about 20% of the total projects.

Um, and so curious about how we're measuring those metrics and trying to do better as time goes on.

Question um a lot of different parts to it.

I think based on our current strategic plan, one of our highest priorities is funding projects with 30% AMI units that are connected to the larger homelessness resolution system, and that have especially if they can be vouchered so that families are only paying 30% of their income.

I think the fact that there were fewer in this presentation is just an artifact of timing.

And we are continuing to try to fund as many of those as possible.

Right now we have two that have recently received tax credits and will be coming for funding later this year, and then another coming in the beginning of 2027.

Beyond that, I I think the difficulty we're going to continue to struggle with is just how expensive they are.

And so there will always be unfortunately a trade-off between you know getting the most number of units, which would push us towards higher AMIs and fewer services, and then ensuring we have enough units that have services and are focused on those kind of lower AMI groups.

And so right now, based on our current strategic plan, we really place the most emphasis on two types of projects permanent supportive housing for people and families exiting homelessness, and then projects with larger bedrooms that can serve families.

And those are usually separate types of projects.

I think we've been fortunate to have a few, such as Washington that were able to kind of combine those and have 30% AMI units with larger bedrooms as well.

Okay, that's helpful.

And then I'm curious when it comes to the cost per unit of the housing, you know, it seems that like Eler Park was pretty high at 431,000 for a unit compared to others, and how we are tracking that and making sure and monitoring the profit of the developer as far as with our subsidy.

Anything about BLR in particular?

No, other than the fact that it's a phase development in the first phase can tend to be more expensive because it has to do uh some extra work to support the entire development in order to be approved.

So that's part of it.

But also we have been seeing the um per unit costs in general going up over time.

Um that's actually not that far out of the range, unfortunately, for what we're actually seeing.

I don't know about this particular group of projects, what the average is, but you know, obviously the uh Joshua station is a very different project.

Low Redal High South of other like I would say unfortunately 400,000s or even a little bit more becoming the norm in Denver for affordable housing.

Uh it is one of our selection criteria is how efficient you are.

Um unfortunately that also means that was our only criteria that we would be saying no to projects with early childhood education centers or playgrounds or kind of those extra amenities.

Um your question about developer fees for uh all of our projects, we followed uh the Colorado housing finance authorities guidelines, which are that it is a maximum of 12% of total development costs as a developer fee for large projects and for smaller projects, I believe can go up to 15%.

Um we have used that statewide threshold as ours for also non-line projects.

Something that would be helpful for me is just knowing what that per unit cost is and why certain per unit costs might be higher or lower, so that when we're comparing project to project, I can better understand what the and along with that, like what the subsidy per unit is.

And then my last question, and I'll jump back in queue if there's more time, is around um I noticed that a lot of the loans are based on the cash flow of the development, and I have heard that there is a struggle renting out some of these.

I don't know if you've heard that there is a struggle renting out some of these affordable units, and what happens if the developer doesn't have the cash flow that they expected.

Yeah, the um the softening of the Denver rental market in general means that those units that are reserved for households earning 70 or 80 percent AMI, that's pretty close to market rate rents.

And so those units especially are seeing higher vacancy rates, and um that does mean that the city receives fewer cash flow payments from those projects.

Our goal is not necessarily to revolve the money as quickly as possible.

We're also trying to balance that need with the need to provide financial sustainability to these projects.

You know, we are five to eight, maybe ten percent of the total capital stack.

We are kind of the the last money in truly filling whatever the remaining gap is.

And so there's a tension between wanting to either earn a return or revolve the money as quickly as possible with not wanting to squeeze projects to the point of not being sustainable and having to come back for more money anyways.

Great.

And I'll jump back in.

You you can actually keep going because we have so much time and we have two other members in queue.

So when it comes to the number of units that we're putting at each AMI, I would appreciate to be able to know what number of bedrooms is going along with that percentage of AMI.

And I would also be curious to know how quickly they're being leased out because one of the struggles I've seen with the for sale affordable project is that to meet the AMI limits for a family unit is also challenging.

And so I'm curious how that's playing out in reality versus us fighting for some of these units.

And I don't know if you have that kind of information or if you're tracking how quickly these are being leased out, or which units are in the highest demand.

Yeah, I'd be happy to pass along to our asset management team who has the the real data, so you don't just have me making it up on the spot.

Um so they can provide you with kind of a snapshot of vacancy rates in our rental projects.

Um we do have in these slides the number of bedrooms by AMIs, and um happy to provide that for any of the projects in our portfolio that you're interested in.

Yeah, I'm curious how you're measuring AMI versus family size and how that's playing out, if that makes sense.

I know back when before I was on council and we were selling units at Latella in District 3, that we really had a hard time getting those family units leased out with the AMI um requirements, and so I'd love to learn a little bit more about that and not just the vacancy rates, but how quickly they're also leasing out as they come on market.

Yeah, these projects generally uh underwrite to a 10 to 15 percent absorption rate every month, like 10 to 15 percent of the units get rented each month as as they get towards full occupancy.

Um for rental projects, well, for all projects, you know, the AMI does you know mean a different number by the size of the household.

It can be especially difficult for home ownership because there are also uh front-end ratio requirements, and so um the combination of our 80% AMI limits usually for homeownership with those you know uh front-end requirements can be can be challenging for those.

So happy to follow up in more detail if you'd like.

Yeah, and I would be interested to hear what the difference is because like I remember with Latella, it was all the studios were flying off the somewhere the three bedrooms, but the two bedrooms were like the sticking point where the family size and the AMI were not meeting a re a real human being out there that was searching for housing that was making that AMI and needed the two-bedroom.

Um then uh another my last question uh is if we are using that prioritization rule now where we're actually making sure to bring in people that have been displaced from areas and when does that start?

They are, I believe, launching that about now.

Um and I don't want to speak too much to it because that's a different part of host, but it's going live.

Right, and we have been putting it in our loan agreements.

It's been a requirement for a bit now in all of our loan agreements, yeah.

It will apply to Loretta Heights, and so um, and they're working with Stephanie Mitchell who's over the privatization program for their um marketing for properties when it comes along for after construction.

That is great because it is one of those naturally at one time was an affordable area to live, so I'm sure there's a lot of people that can take advantage of that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jared.

Thank you all for your work.

Great question.

Thank you so much.

Um, I have Councilmember Torres next in the queue, followed by Madam Pro Tim.

Thank you.

Um I'll just point Councilwoman Avidra, she asked about the unit mix.

Each of these sections has the unit mix where you can see the how many bedrooms and at what AMI.

So it's in the presentation.

It's I thought it showed percentage and number of bedrooms, but not number of bedrooms at that percentage.

Overlap.

It's got it.

It does for each one.

At least what I'm understanding that you're asking for.

Let me look at it.

Sure.

Um thanks everybody, and really excited to see the geographic distribution of all of these projects.

The question really quickly, Loretta, was that a new build or was it a rehab of a Retta Heist is a new construction?

Okay, okay, great.

The housing coordinator, is that for a determined period of time until they run out of money, or do they have a commitment for a housing coordinator long term?

Um I would gather that Mercy Housing would keep refilling that reserve.

Um but I can definitely follow up with them to make sure it's in an ongoing process, not just like maybe after 15 years it runs out.

Okay, thank you.

Um for South Birch, just noticing how much parking they have.

Um are you seeing any trend or interest in converting uh car parking into something else that either incentivizes like um an like an on-site ride share program or um I don't know, bicycle parking, or I don't know, are you seeing anything around that?

Not that it's something that we would govern or regulate.

I think it's common to see RTD passes included for transit-oriented developments, especially with lower parking ratios than previously.

I mean, back in the day it used to be at least a one, like one to one and now empty parking spaces, maybe.

Yeah, I mean, Birch is an example of when they they used to really park projects at a much higher rate than they do these days.

Yeah, so um I will sorry.

So I'm the chair of the Board of Transportation Solutions, which is the Transportation Management Association for the sort of Southeast Denver, um, Councilmember Romero Campbell sits on it as well.

Um, but one of the projects that TS is doing this year is actually like they have grants to work with affordable housing providers um to do exactly that because eco passes are becoming less and less attractive as our TD service remains less and less useful and regular and all the things.

Um and so like we have our TDM ordinance that requires that oh, Councilmember Cashman, you're on it too, sorry.

Um we have our TDM ordinance that requires that there be offset um for any new development, right?

And one of the options for that requirement is um eco passes, but the the builder, the developer can actually choose kind of from a menu of items in our TDM ordinance and rules and regs within DOTTI, like what they want to um use to offset, and depending on what they choose, like you get a series of points, right?

And then when you hit enough points, that's when you you meet your threshold and you're offsetting enough trips that you can that you fulfill our ordinance.

Um there is a lot of conversation amongst transportation management associations across the state of Colorado and working with affordable housing partners in particular when it comes to ride share and bike lockers because there are like containers, right?

There uh there are a number up in the northeast far northeast as well.

Their TMA does them.

It's Angie Melpietti who runs that one.

Um they they are trying to do sort of set this up in more places to make it more accessible for affordable housing in particular to be able to do like bike locker storage or bike locker rental or those kinds of things, and the places um, unless it's a new build where they are finding the space to do that kind of thing are parking spaces and old builds where they had uh they have so many parking spots.

The other thing we're seeing I will just add is a real challenge.

And I don't know if you guys have seen this, and I'm certainly not saying that anyone on this list is doing this, but I will tell you that in naturally occurring affordable housing in district five, we have three developments I can name off the top of my head right now that are starting to charge for parking.

Yeah, they only can they are only legally required to have one parking space per unit, no matter how many bedrooms are in the unit or how that works, um, in order to accept vouchers uh to be paid via voucher.

And so what they're doing is they're doing that one required parking spot, and but they have so much spare parking that they're asking, they're making the residents pay for any other parking spots.

And so what we're seeing um is that those parks are getting driven into the right-of-way, they're parking on streets um in residential areas around instead of in the parking lot that is there.

So those parking and the parking spaces sit empty um and the you know streets are filled up, but that's because it's free.

Yeah.

So there's like parking and affordable housing is a whole situation.

Yeah, and these older buildings that just have a ton of it.

Yeah, okay.

That's interesting perspective.

Thank you.

The other thing that I've um I'm curious about, particularly for a lot of these that have pretty wide ranges, because I think for me, um, literally anything under 80% is really valuable investment.

So I thank you for I think that whole range.

One of the things I've heard though is for the uh developments that include 30%.

Um one of the things that they've identified as is missing is really that supportive service that we've put into the category of permanent supportive housing, which is uh exclusively 30% and lower.

Um, and they've just encountered a lot of issues between residents in kind of a a natural mix of 30 to 80 or something like that with folks who um maybe just have uh uh more service needs than they they're not built to and weren't funded to accommodate all of that.

So just wondering if that's coming up at all.

It's come up in in Westwood neighborhood in one of our affordable um developments, and just wondering like how that's rising as a conversation among um say any of the folks that are doing dealer or um uh Loretto, kind of that that range if that's coming up as just a difficult to serve um situation.

I was just poking my computer because that's a really hard and very good question.

Um I think it it's a range of different issues.

Sometimes it's um a building that was underwritten too tight and didn't include enough staff, right?

And so without enough staff, you just are not actually managing the building appropriately, and so sometimes that happens.

Um I think uh we have learned that the total number of PSH units in a building can't be too high or it's unmanageable.

Um I also think uh the the new type of lie tech projects, these tax credits that are income average, so 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 80s, like all the types of of AMI units.

Um, those are new, right?

We only have a couple years of experience with that, and so I think that might be one of one of the learnings is kind of to be a little more careful about management plans for those types of buildings.

And um, I'd be interested in following up with the projects in your district to learn more about kind of what they're seeing to inform future project selection and our underwriting.

Thank you.

I think it'd be really helpful, particularly as we come across more and more proposals to build more and more.

And not that I oppose having 30% among a mix of um of accessible units, but it I think those units, those developments have to be successfully resourced to make sure quality of life is good for everyone across the board, right?

Um so happy to um either plug you into a conversation or um be a part of one.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Pro Time Roman Campbell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um thank you for this presentation.

This is really interesting.

Um of the things that I was seeing in in just the different projects that were up there is um similar kind of building stock that's in my district and wondering how do you go about or like what are the next projects that are in the pipeline?

Do people reach out to you or are you reaching out to them?

Um for some of would building conversion be like the right um terminology for for the projects that you're looking at.

Uh I mean not necessarily seeing a lot of like the office to residential conversions.

We do like a project that's coming up, is that's what I'm gonna I'm thinking on my head is an archway project that's uh currently applying for light tech deal.

Um it's gonna be on the Mosaic campus off Montview.

Um, and that will be essentially a perfect preservation project.

Also, that will include about 53% PSH including units in there.

Um that will be coming, it'll be probably presented to that project next year.

Um a lot of our projects are gonna be light tech driven, and so a lot of them are gonna be new prescription new um new construction.

Um, and then we have in our um spring and fall solicitation is around non-lite tech preservation projects that you might see not as much like conversion projects, but more so preserving their existing affordable housing or um like pillow property you know, properties.

Yeah, to add on a little bit to that, the the tax credit program in Colorado has very much favored new construction the last few years, so very few rehab conversion projects.

Um we, as Kendra mentioned, have two solicitation rounds that developers or owners of buildings should apply for funding.

We're also always available to just talk about any old project to give advice about how it could meet our you know priorities to be successful in one of those solicitation rounds.

Um often they can be incredibly impactful in terms of anti-displacement to add deed restrictions and and rehabilitate these buildings.

Unfortunately, there are there's often no federal equity sources that we can leverage, and so they can also be expensive for the city who often is the main uh contributor.

Um that's helpful.

I'm I I'm thinking of um less of like commercial office building, more of like apartment buildings and different complexes and and what that looks like um for some of the housing stock that is in Southeast Denver and what the you know possibility or availability is to be able to do that kind of conversion of of those spaces.

Properties to be affordable.

Yeah, so they'll be going through our rofo process once um well they currently do based on the state law, and then um anything above 15 units once we approve the ordinance um later this um year will still come to me for and so um if they're gonna sell.

If they're gonna sell exactly.

Um but they don't have to sell to apply for our funding.

Um we see a range of different types of residential buildings come to us for for funding.

Birch is one of the biggest, right?

194 units that's really big.

Zina is one of the smallest, that was 23 units um in East Colfax.

I think when you get below that, just the it can be difficult to make the numbers work to fund the management and the overhead.

Um, but we also have some um homeownership scattered site uh pro uh contracts through um elevation community land trust and through habitat and so um owners could also um sell into those programs as well.

So we're we're always happy to take a look at any project and help be a partner to think they get through.

We'll have to follow up on that.

Please do.

Um I have another question about the last project, I think it was tapestry was the last one for the child care that is provided or that they have uh built into that um unit.

Do you know is it do they contract out with a third-party provider?

And can you just say a little bit more about like what that child care looks like?

I don't believe they have, and and I'll follow up with specifics, but and I just came back from paternity leave, so this might be old information, but um or sleepy information, but um they have not contracted with someone yet, you know, they're they're just getting under construction, so they've got two years until that space is filled out.

Um a number of our projects are including early childhood education centers.

It's a big need.

Um it can be uh and and so in their financing, they're attempting to provide that space very cheaply, if not almost free or beyond free, including tenant improvements for the provider.

Um but I have heard some challenges finding enough um organizations to take on those contracts based on difficulties with state financing for early childhood education centers, which is a little beyond my area of expertise, I'll be honest.

Um, but I'll I'll reach out to the developer and and let you know what they say about their plans for that space.

Yeah.

I think you were touching on what I was where I was going of, I think there's a scarcity and it's a challenge, and so you have these spaces and who's providing the service.

Um, and I would hate to see those spaces go on unused or un, you know, you have the space, but then you don't have the provider, and that's really an issue that's out there.

And then what would be the possibility of opening it up to a broader community?

So definitely for affordability, but like those numbers in children and they grow and you have to constantly keep that that going a broader community opportunity to be able to help fill some of those slots and spaces is also.

I don't know if they're amenable to that.

And I know that's a little bit off topic, but I just think for the sustainability for for care in general.

I really appreciate that comment because we hear it from developers and are a little bit at a loss about how to help, because it it's not our funding mission, but we do really value it.

It's on my list to reach out to the Office of Family and Children's Initiatives to link up with them to see how we can bring them into the process.

And so that's also a concern.

Because the dream is that it's very affordable child care for the residents of the building.

Offline I'll talk to you about other kind of options and ideas.

I think that there's ways to be able to kind of bridge that child care solution with co-oping, like having a co-op, having other ways to do training.

I mean, there's there are I think different varieties of ways that there's a need out there and hasn't necessarily had a location or a space to be able to have those partnerships.

So I think very very cool.

And then my last question is forgot my last question, I got so excited about that one.

Um the uh the units that you have been creating, are all of those have you had to do renovations?

Like, are they all accessible units, or is there a percentage of accessible units that are being built or made or provided?

Right.

So okay, in our contracts for funding, we do require five percent of the units uh in the development to be fully accessible.

And two percent in addition to that to be at least uh if not fully accessible, but um hearing and visual accessibility.

So they can anyway, so they can be made to be uh accessible to those persons as well.

Um there is an additional layer that we've certain we've uh addressed recently about uh home and other federal regulations that require something similar, um, but it's a little bit different, and there's some conversation around how we're gonna match those things together.

Um apparently under the building code, um, there are certain uh levels of accessibility that count that wouldn't necessarily count when you're using federal funds because they're looking for fully accessible, completely built out, not just um uh what you call it adaptable, if you will.

Now, some projects will uh decide to do more than what's absolutely required, but the minimum is five percent as accessible and two percent is hearing and visual impaired accessible.

This is also an item that we're hoping to address with the housing needs assessment.

It's something that I think we could use uh a deeper policy look at.

Um this has been the requirement for a long time.

Um, and so hoping to take another look at that as we receive more data.

That's great.

I think I'm also just thinking of like um older populations and having a multi-generational building that you would be able to have uh, you know, different residents who are also living there.

I think that that is also a you know, are there specific communities that that they're focused on?

I know you have the family ones, um, to one of my um colleagues' questions earlier, um, like family makeup also for room size and um families that are a multi-generational family, right?

So accessibility maybe for the grandparent or for an older adult living in the in the unit, and also knowing that you have young children, and so thinking about what those needs are and and if that's occurring or if that's just not in the sphere of what you're experiencing.

I would say that I don't have exact data on this, but um I have seen lots of projects that do at least build their units as adaptable um for that sort of aging in place and or for swapping out accessibility when needed.

Um but other than that, I don't know that we've had that as a particular focus.

I don't know why we wouldn't necessarily.

Yeah, I think that's that's certainly something we're hoping to take a deeper look at and make more data-driven decision about should we increase it?

Should we have a set aside for projects that are more focused on accessibility and how to best achieve those goals?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thank you.

I love when we have enough time to really ask our questions, it's kind of great.

Um I am next in the queue, so I just want to see if any other council members want to get in.

Okay, great.

Um let me then find my little notes of questions.

So something I was thinking about when Councilmember Alrightos was asking her questions is I have had the sense that um because most of these projects have a capital stack that involves other federal and state funding, hopefully Light tech, et cetera.

Um I have the sense that we're not able to um necessarily kind of be going back and forth asking for changes.

Um but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I I would love to hear you all talk a little more about sort of like where we are in the um in the stack, like do they tend to come to us once they have other funding secured?

Also very curious how many applications we're getting compared to what we're able to fund.

Um, you know, to give us that sense of like in other words, the projects that we see in front of us, what universe did those come from and how much influence do we really have over them?

And and I imagine it depends a little bit on the project.

But since we're having discussion time, just curious about that general topic.

So to the question of um applications versus funding, it's it's a lot versus a little.

I've just what's that?

Approximate numbers.

Like, do you know how many applications we get?

And if not, I would love to know.

I'm really hesitating to make to like guess on the spot.

That's fine.

The number I can remember though is um we have the most control over our private activity bond projects because we are the step that makes it real.

With our gap financing, they have already received tax credits, they've got most of what they need.

We're we're really the the filling the gap at the end of the day.

So last year's um last year's PAB round for private activity bonds, which again unlocks low-income housing tax credits.

Um we received 25 to 30 applications, and we funded or we reserved uh enough bonds for three.

Uh and we had one from a previous year that we continued.

Right.

So there are a lot of very ambitious, talented, creative affordable housing developers, uh, an increasing number, luckily, in in the in Denver.

Um they've got a lot of interesting projects.

And they have land that they want to use for these projects.

They usually have an option on land.

Got it.

That's actually interesting.

Okay.

Um, well, that's interesting.

And we and we would love to hear the um how many applicants we get for gap financing as well, if it's something you can send around to us in any format that that number makes sense.

Um and then you mentioned vouchers, and I think you were talking about our city vouchers.

Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I was curious.

I I you know don't understand our city voucher program as well as I should, but I understand it to be basically project-based if you were to kind of compare it to federal.

Okay, thanks for the nods of encouragement there.

Uh, curious if those played a role in any of these projects.

I thought maybe you mentioned it with one of them.

And then just generally speaking, it's not the topic of today, but any um updates on where we're at with with our city vouchers and how many of them we've been able to fund and that kind of thing.

So the the Washington Street Project received 20 city project-based vouchers for the 20 permanent supportive housing projects.

Um I can send you our like actual um kind of tracker tracker for it because most of the commitments we've made have not those buildings have not been constructed yet.

So though we've committed and contracted for the vouchers, they're not online.

So, you know, 901 Navajo was probably the the biggest voucher commitment we made.

That was 90 something vouchers.

Uh Warren Village was the first project, and that was 20 or 30 vouchers.

Um then um, you know, as part of our partnership with DHA, the the D3 program, DHA delivers for Denver.

Um, we're uh working with them on another few projects.

Most of the vouchers are not coming from Denver, but we're anticipating another uh project that would open in 2029, 2030.

Um the the source of funds for vouchers is the homeless resolution fund, which has a lot of um demands on it.

And so we want to be very prudent and careful about voucher commitments because they are 20-year commitments for um however much money is left after the the tenant pays their 30%.

Yeah, and so valuable, but right expensive and um okay, thank you.

That that's really helpful to know.

Um I don't have other questions, so we can be done, or if anyone else wants to get back in, we can also make use of the time.

Okay, thank you all.

That was so helpful.

I'm glad we finally did it.

It was it had been eight months since our last quarterly update.

Um but we'll get one in again as soon as we can because they're always super helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you awesome.

Thank you.

Yeah, and with that we're adjourned.