meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0745
|
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 14 0745 is in support of the mile high behavioral health care and its miracle on Logan Street. Whereas, since 1960, mile high behavioral health care has been providing Coloradoans an accessible substance use disorder and mental health treatment. As an innovative leader in the field, supporting thousands of people to recovery and moving into higher levels of functionality and self-sufficiency. And. Whereas, one of the most difficult obstacles for be H.S. clients trained to realize their possibilities and ultimate goal of complete sobriety and self-sufficiency is securing access to safe, stable and supportive housing. Because the streets of homelessness makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to address the issues of mental health and substance abuse and move into recovery. And. Whereas, MH PHC is launching its Miracle on Logan Street program designed to address that. Designed to address housing challenges. Providing a home for women struggling with mental health issues and substance abuse, and working hard to realize their full potential. Being sober, empowered and self-sufficient members of their own families and community. And. WHEREAS, The home at 1150 Logan Street is being renovated to provide eight small apartments for women with dual diagnosis of mental health and substance abuse, and who are enrolled in the Miracles program as well as accommodation for on site coordinator. And. Whereas, residents can stay on Logan for up to two years, during which time they will receive individual family and group therapy, substance use monitoring, parenting programs, social skills development, GED sessions and job readiness classes and assistance , among other types of monitoring and support. And we're as it may be, CHC will hold an open house at 1150 Logan on September 12th between 1130 and 130 for the community to tour the house where miracles will happen and we encourage you all to come. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by City Council of the City and County of Denver that the Council thinks mile high behavior, behavioral health care for the important work it does in the Denver community and supports the Miracle on Logan Street Project and that the clerk show attest and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit a copy thereof to mile high behavioral health care.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move for the adoption of Proclamation 14 0745.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and second that comments from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: So I first have to divulge that I am a former board member of this organization and thoroughly enjoyed serving on this board. Also served on the board of Delta Neighborhood Development Corporation, who formerly owned this property and gave it back to the city. If you all remember, the global housing purchases were Denver was involved in acquiring a number of properties to be made available for people who were chronically mentally ill. This was one of those programs. But Del Norte only does housing services and when the organization who is doing the services moved their clients out and a lot of it had to do with funding no longer available to provide those services. There was a covenant on this property that required that these types of clients continue to be served in this property. And so Dallas returned it back to the city and fortunately Mile High stepped to the plate and is able to continue providing these same types of services to folks in in our community who really need them. And, you know, we've had lots of conversations on this dais about homelessness and the need for affordable housing. And when we have organizations that step to the plate and really do their part in helping meet both the housing needs as well as the. Service needs of people in our community. It helps ensure that these folks are returned back to society and become contributing members. So I want to thank my OGI for their efforts in working to raise the money to renovate the building, to secure the funding for the services that will be made available. And I want to congratulate the board of my own high, who have been fully engaged in this project every step of the way. The city of Denver has played an important role in providing some resources to make this project happen. So I want to thank the Office of Economic Development for their role. I believe the Division of Housing and Bob or Bob or Bob, one of you will talk about some of those sources in just a few minutes. But this is just a great project. And if you all have an opportunity to come by the open house on September 12th, I would encourage you to stop in. This is in Councilwoman Robb's district in the Capitol Hill community played a very important role in supporting this project to to come into the neighborhood. So I just want to encourage support for my colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for bringing this forward. I first learned about this property, ironically, when I was. I took a little campaign office in one of those great mansions right across the street, and people would ask me, Oh, you're running for city council. Do you know that this great program that used to be across the street has been lost and you know what's going to happen? And it's taken a very long time. So I want to say thank you to mile high behavior, health care as well as city staff. I know Christopher Smith, who's no longer with the city, was very tenacious in holding on to the property and insisting that it had to be the right provider. Took us a lot of years, but I'm so glad that it's going to be back in service. And Madam Secretary, if I could belatedly be added as a co-sponsor, I would appreciate it. Thank you for taking this challenge. And good luck to the women that you're going to serve.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kinney, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for bringing this forward. I was not familiar directly with this property until the Mile High Behavior Council or Behavioral Health Group came to visit with me. And even after that, I think it took possibly two more years to actually get this in place, maybe one year to get the funding and another year to get the improvements. They did do good outreach to the community as Councilwoman Ortega references, and the House actually looks much better today, I'm sure, than when you had your office there. So I'm very excited about this, too. Unfortunately, I just found out over the weekend that I will not be able to to make the open house on Friday, but I will be sending a representative from my office because this is definitely a milestone.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Any other comments from members of the council scene? None. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Ortega, Rob I. Sheppard Susman. I like Brooks Brown.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: But I can eat lemon Lopez. Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 745 has been adopted. Councilwoman Ortega. Who would you like to have come forward to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 5: I'd like to ask the board president of my own High Behavioral Health Council to come forward. But Bruce and I don't know Bob Turkheimer if you want to join him as well, the executive director for Mile High. So again, gentlemen, thank you for making this project happen. Any comments you want to share?
Speaker 7: Mr. Chairman, members of council and particularly Councilwoman Ortega, thank you for this great honor. I'm a lifelong resident of the city county of Denver. And I have to tell you that as of last week, that's 51 years. And I can't tell you that I'm so proud to be a resident of Denver and the president of this board
Speaker 1: . The partnership that.
Speaker 7: We've developed with this nonprofit entity and the public sector through the Office of Economic Development, John Lucero, Doug Selby, Seneca Wallace and Joe Margolis. They've been so grateful. We're so grateful for what they've done for us.
Speaker 1: Bob will tell you a little bit about the programing that.
Speaker 7: Will happen there, but as we open this particular property, we're going to have nine.
Speaker 1: Units available and eight women who are no.
Speaker 7: Longer on the streets but on the road to recovery. Thank you for this proclamation and for the opportunity to help assist Denver and its residents on their road to recovery.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Council. I'm Bob D'alzheimer, proud resident of Green Valley Ranch. I usually have to get that in every time I come down here.
Speaker 2: There's 11. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: That's just ranch. Speak for us folks that live in a ranch. Our program, we're very excited to have it will be opening this Saturday, the day after our ribbon cutting. And our main focus is really for the child welfare women through the Denver Department of Human Services that need an opportunity for clean, stable and supportive housing that will help continue to address their parenting needs, mental health and substance abuse needs. A program like this doesn't really exist in our housing inventory when it comes to the therapeutic and sobriety aspects of it. So this is something new. We're all going to keep our eye on and I hope to continue to grow it through our community and keep families intact. The women will continue to do their visitation at the Denver Department of Human Services, as well as attend our treatment services, which are located on sixth and Broadway on the campus of Denver Health. So it's a really exciting opportunity. I can't thank enough for the support of Councilwoman Robb and Ortega that have been with us instrumentally every step of the way. There is a city employee that I found to be so easy to work with and remarkable, and that's John Lazaro. So he definitely should receive some sort of accolades because he's a true professional. And when we wrote for the RFP, John realized that this was a niche in the housing system that wasn't being met. And he was concerned about these women and these kids and made sure that this project came to be our funders who helped get this up. Our wonderful foundation from the Denver Foundation, Gates Family Foundation and the Daniels Fund and other private donors helped us pull this together. The rehab is running close to $400,000, so that old house is now a beautiful new house. That's all this guy from Green Valley Ranch has to say to time to make the commute home. And once again, thank you all.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for bringing this forward. We are now ready for their resolutions. Madam Secretary, would you please read the resolutions.
Speaker 4: From business development? 653 Resolution Approve the Mayor's reappointment, the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District from Finance and Services Act 67 resolution declaring the intent city and county of Denver, Colorado to use its best efforts to issue housing revenue, bonds or mortgage credit certificates, supervising entire residential facilities for low and middle income families of persons, prescribing certain
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in support of Mile High Behavioral Healthcare and its Miracle on Logan Street.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0642
|
Speaker 2: Any other questions on 641? Scene nine will bring up the next one, which was 642, called out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Fox. Would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: Please put it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 2: Early council members, will you make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 9: Certainly. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Could you please put 642 on the floor to be ordered published?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 642 on the board on the floor to be published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a contract for duty free shops in DJIA, in RFP situations, and there was an RFP that more than one in this situation. I rarely raise issues about process, but this contract does concern me. There were allegations of improper contact from one of the applicants to airport personnel seeking confidential information. The airport says the RFP process wasn't dated, but they canceled that. RFP changed the parameters away and issued a second RFP. Key to me is the applicant with the alleged improper behavior was on the first RFP, but not on the second submitted by the winning contractor. I have concerns about whether that second RFP was to accommodate that PURP, that group that was applying for the contract. Also, around the same time, DeLay addressed its allowable ownership control percentage, an action which could ultimately benefit this contractor. I really do not have strong feelings about whether ownership concentration should be 20%, 24%, even 50%. But the timing of the change is very troubling. This council has received a letter from a losing bidder alleging serious concerns. Now, while receiving that kind of communication is not that unusual. The allegations get my attention because my own prior due diligence raised two of the issues. I fear there may be some truth in some of the allegations, and if so, I sincerely hope they are not indicative of a larger bidding problem at DGA. I'll be voting no.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. May I ask a question of a staff member? You going to give the go ahead.
Speaker 2: Great.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't like Councilwoman Shepherd. I don't serve on this committee. And I have tried to do my due diligence. But can someone from the airport come ask a question? Well, Neil is very close. Perhaps you. Thank you, Mr. Maxfield. You're welcome. So my question is, I, too, was concerned when I heard questions about the changes that were being made to the ownership maximum ownership calculations. Can you clarify for me how that piece was scored in the RFP or how it could have affected the outcome of who was selected and what the connection might or might not be between those two?
Speaker 7: Sure. So concentration of ownership is a policy that the airport has in place has been in place since 2007. It limits essentially the amount of square footage one entity can own at the airport, just so we don't put more concentration in one entity's hands at the airport. So the concentration of ownership policy, I get it can be murky at times. I understand that. I think it did. We acknowledge it is a little murky and difficult to understand. We are going through a review process right now with our concessionaires in a third party, and we intend to hopefully release some additional changes to the policy or a revision in the next few weeks. But it has no really no bearing at all on the selection criteria that's used in the RFP. The concentration of ownership policy comes into effect after an award has been made. And essentially, if that potential awarded party, the recommended party from the third party panel evaluates that proposer and says this is the recommended awardee, then that award then has to go through the concentration of ownership calculation process. If they're determined to be over the concentration limit that the policy sets in place, then we ask them to divest of their current holdings before awarding them the contract.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if I may just follow up and make sure I understand that. So there's no points awarded in the selection criteria based on this calculation? That's correct. Not scored. And if someone would have been over, would they have been prevented from bidding? Did it have any impact on who could bid?
Speaker 7: No, it doesn't prevent anyone from bidding. We do as a courtesy request that somebody identifies if they won that RFP, if they would be above the concentration. So we can understand what their divestiture would be if they were awarded the contract.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then my last question is just it sounds like you have learned some lessons about the policy in terms of how it's updated. And so you're taking some steps regarding that. It you mentioned very briefly, but can you clarify?
Speaker 7: Yeah, clearly we understand that square footage, you know, how it's measured, how it's quantified is something we need to look at. We also understand that the policy, the calculation that's contained within the policy creates some ambiguity. So we're trying to find a way, and we've been working with our concessionaires for the last few weeks to identify a change to that calculation, which gets us to the same sort of tenor, but makes it a little bit more clear for those applicants in future of peace.
Speaker 0: Okay. But and just one last clarification. None of those changes would have any impact on the scoring or selection in this case.
Speaker 7: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Don't go too far now. So can you help me understand what the timing of the change was and what the involvement from the concessionaires was at the time that change was made? Because it's my understanding it was a 20% threshold and then that was changed to 24%. So what's the timing of that as it applies to, you know, the RFP being out to bid and all of that kind of stuff?
Speaker 7: Sure. And it's what we need to make sure you understand is clear, is that there were two hour fees, as was suggested by Councilwoman Fox when RFP went out in April of 13. That was terminated and another RFP was started in October of 2013. During the period of time that the first RFP was on the street, we were working with the concessionaires. We had several meetings and conference calls to engage them in the revision of the of the policy. And the policy change was enacted just before we released the October of 2013 RFP.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so it wasn't done specifically for the release of the RFP, or was it?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 5: Okay. So it just happened to be that's the timing of when it got done. And so that new policy would have applied to that or any other contract that was being awarded at the time, is that correct?
Speaker 7: Correct. In the new policy requires changes in the RFP documented required the. Creation of what we call Exhibit L, and that is a concentration of ownership exhibit. And so we didn't want to release that new duty free RFP or any other RFP until after that policy had been confirmed.
Speaker 5: So you guys are engaged in a conversation right now with the concessionaires about having yet another change to the same policy? Correct?
Speaker 7: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so anybody that is currently bidding on any, do you have our PS out on the street right now? Just clarify that first.
Speaker 7: No, I'll clarify that for you. We we will not be issuing any RFP until the concentration of ownership policy is finalized.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 5: Okay. So whatever that goal or that threshold is will apply to any new RFP that are submitted.
Speaker 7: That's correct. The limitations, as we are currently discussing, will not change. It's just the mechanics of the calculation.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 7: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments or questions from Councilman Lopez?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I had been watching and following this issue and. With great frustration. Yet again, we have another contract at the CIA that is under scrutiny and heavy scrutiny. A lot of controversy. I have been contacted by a lot of community members, some of the folks from the concessionaires groups, some one of the concessionaires that came in second on the bid. And today I was able to meet with folks from the airport to get a lot of questions answered. I've been contacted a lot lately about this particular, particular bill. What bothers me, and I don't believe that the winning contract should not move forward. I'm going to support this contract moving forward. It came in first on both tries and most objective selection objective panel. But I'm concerned about the airport. I'm concerned about the process. I'm getting a little tired of hearing about it. This airport is a great airport to be in. Business at the airport is a great feat. There are a lot of people that have been there a very long time and have been very successful. Chances are if you have a business as a if you have a business or businesses at the airport, you can do pretty well . It's a pretty lucrative opportunity and a lot of people are in line waiting to have that opportunity. There are a lot of folks who are at the airport who are doing just fine. And who are continuing to do well. What I worry about is, are we using that space in the airport? Adequately. Are we maximizing our opportunities to create more business opportunities? Are we finite in the spaces that we are putting out to bid? Can I tell you what? I go to some of these other airports and they are packed. They have kiosks everywhere. I come to die and it's empty for a long walk. And past a certain hour, most of everything is closed. I don't understand why we are not maximizing our opportunity to create new business opportunities so we don't have to see bidders fight against each other. I'm amazed why some of these processes are so so questionable. And you know councilman fights I your argument is very compelling and I'm actually you convince me I'm very concerned about it. I don't think I don't think we're here and the whole story. And I think there are some truths are being told on their side. I don't think that's the applicant's fault. In either any of the bidders. I think that's our process that's flawed. And I really think that we need to concentrate on making sure that not only is the process solid, right, but we are looking at opportunities to create more business opportunities for folks, for local businesses. Denver's great. Our airport has a great feel to it because it's Denver, right? You have Denver businesses there. I want to continue to see that there are a lot of people in line that would kill for that opportunity. Why don't we maximize that? Why don't we spread that around? Our airport is not floundering. It's doing very well. Price per square foot is really high. A lot of these smaller businesses that. They can't even compete because they can't even get in on that. It's triple what is in the city. The insurance policies that they have to buy. Are insanely expensive. I don't I think we really, really have to commit. And after meeting with the folks at the airport we're working really hard on I really commend you, but I, I really think that we should be doing more. I think that would help prevent a lot of the issues that exist. Let's create more opportunity. You sound like a broken record. That's opportunity. I'm going to support this moving forward. But I'm I still have a lot of questions about this process, and I don't know if I'm going to support it on the final consideration because I'm still going to be meeting other folks. So I would like to cast a yes vote tonight. Now I want to try to figure out. Well, we're missing the point here where we're not creating opportunity, where we could be creating opportunity. We shouldn't be fighting over this at the airport. We should be plenty of contracts to go around. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments or questions from members of council seen on Madam Secretary? Roll call.
Speaker 6: Fights.
Speaker 4: No carnage. Layman Lopez. Montero, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. I brought Shepherd Susman. Brooks Brown. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 one nay.
Speaker 2: 12 one 9642 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, go ahead and tee up the next one. And before we move on, I forgot to scan the audience this morning and acknowledge I want to acknowledge our former mayor, Wellington Webb, is in the chamber. So thank you, Mayor, for for being here. I apologize for not acknowledging you earlier. We're ready for Council Bill 686 called out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: Please put on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 2: Certainly. Councilman Brooks, could you please have Council Bill 686 ordered published?
Speaker 9: Certainly, Mr. President, I move that council bill 686 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. The issue in front of us is a change in United Airlines lease. And these changes are part of a larger package of ordinances, not all coming at the same time. They include restructuring DIA debt, plus changes to the lease and that the latter part of what's in front of us. As I understand it, the United Airlines lease is actually dependent on our restructuring the debt, even if we are taking action on it. First, when this proposal was before the Business Development Committee, I asked the position of other airlines since United Airlines gets far and away the most benefit from this package.
|
Bill
|
Approves agreement with Denver Duty Free, JV for a period of seven years and $116,799.34 monthly to develop, operate, and manage the new Tax & Duty Free/Duty Paid locations in Concourse A Center Core and in Concourse B, Mezzanine Level East-side, along with a specialty retail location in Concourse C Center Core (PLANE 201415388-00). Goals assigned is 33%. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Approves agreement with Denver Duty Free, JV for a period of seven years and $116,799.34 monthly to develop, operate, and manage the new Tax & Duty Free/Duty Paid locations in Concourse A Center Core and in Concourse B, Mezzanine Level East-side, along with a specialty retail location in Concourse C Center Core (PLANE 201415388-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 8-7-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0686
|
Speaker 6: As I understand it, the United Airlines lease is actually dependent on our restructuring the debt, even if we are taking action on it. First, when this proposal was before the Business Development Committee, I asked the position of other airlines since United Airlines gets far and away the most benefit from this package. Since that time, I've had occasion to talk with a representative from Southwest Airlines. Southwest was very complimentary about their working relationship with DIA and Kim Day. Despite any concerns at this point, they want to be team players and are not opposing this ordinance. That being said, there are reasons I have decided to oppose it regardless. I say this acknowledging United Airlines is crucial to the well-being of DIA and I value their presence. Valuing should not mean continual financial concessions. However, since I've been on council, we have made concessions to United numerous times. I'm going to say about five or six two years ago. We relieve them of obligations and in turn received guarantees. Those guarantees were enforceable by financial penalties if they did not deliver, and indeed they've been paying penalties. This contract wipes out those penalty agreements and as a practice it seems DIA negotiates, gets agreements and then subsequently renegotiate the deal and loses the benefits it formerly achieved. It's hard for me to to get too excited about anything that's being put forth as getting in this deal, because history shows it may be very short lived. Second, to be a level playing field among carriers is important. The portions to come later dealing with restructuring debt and modifying amateur resolution are what benefit all carriers proportionately. The total package, including this least change, is worth $45 million of airline benefit per year. For major airlines, United's scores, 35 million of the benefit. Southwest 4.5 million. And Frontier 2.5 million. A bit lopsided for a level playing field. Lastly, I discovered a troubling issue concerning timing. DIMIA gave the details of this agreement to other airlines. The Friday before council's Tuesday meeting. Needless to say, corporations need more time to evaluate such important changes if they're to have opinions or input. No matter what happens today. I urge DEA to involve their member airlines on such significant changes weeks or months earlier so they can actually have input before final decisions are made and certainly long before proposals are brought to council. That's only fair.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilmember.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I love to bring up Patrick just to answer answer some of these questions. Obviously, I think that this is a tremendous opportunity for that airport to extend the lease of United Airlines from 2025 to 2035. But but, Patrick, perhaps a couple of questions. One, you can talk briefly about the SCOOP and Chuck financial method by which we're doing this and other airlines will benefit. And specifically addressing Councilman FATSIS, concern of the disproportionality of the payments, because I believe that's because of the proportion in which they use the airport. But go ahead.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you, Councilman Brooks and members of council. My name is Patrick Heck. I'm the chief financial officer for the airport. In regards to the to the second part of your question regarding the proportionality benefits, when you look at how carriers operate at the airport, they're different sizes. United has about 40% of our market, for example. And so when you they also lease approximate, they pay about 50% of the airline revenue that comes to the airport. So when you do anything to change the financial structure of the airport, that positively affects the carriers. They're going to have a larger impact from that just because of the way it's structured. That's the proportionality that Councilwoman Ford's parts mentioned in United's case, though, however, United's been at the airport. They signed a lease in 1995 to help the new airport at that time get off the ground, get it financed and get it open and united. Signed a 30 year lease in order to do that. And as a result, they have legacy airline costs from 20 years ago that other carriers haven't had the burden of. And as you all know, the airline industry has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. This is a reflection of the airport being financially successful because of that long term lease United signed and us recognizing that in order to keep them here, we need to change to adapt to the changing airline model. And so that's that's what this leases is really about. The first part of your question regarding this group and Chuck, we have debt associated with the regional airport of about two and a half billion dollars. That is still outstanding. That debt is scheduled to be paid off in 2025. As a result, our payment on our debt goes down dramatically in 2025. This scoop, and Chuck, as we call it, is taking some of that debt now and chucking it out past 2025 to take advantage of that debt fall off so that we can deliver benefits to the carriers now. I think you all know money now to the carriers is much more important than money, say, ten or 15 years from now. So this allows us to leverage that debt structure and provide savings to the carriers now.
Speaker 9: And another question, Patrick, is I think it's important to set for the public and folks for counsel to understand the climate in which we're at with United Airlines downsizing in some of these other hub airports, for example, Cleveland and things like that. And so maybe Cincinnati. Yes. Set the tone there a little bit.
Speaker 7: Certainly, the airline industry has gone through a massive amount of consolidation in the past 4 to 5 years. Delta combined with Northwest, United and Continental, Southwest and AirTran, American and U.S. Airways. So we have fewer players and fewer players means that there just needs to be less of these hubs. And I could rattle off Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Memphis, Raleigh, Durham, you name it. The list goes on and on of cities that once formerly had large airline hubs that have lost them. And there cities that if you look at that list are not too dissimilar from us in a lot of ways, medium sized cities that don't necessarily have a large international traffic base where airlines make their money. And so when we look at that, it's incumbent upon us to make sure we as an airport and I want to stress this is airport funds and airport financial capabilities that are doing this. No taxpayer dollars involved here in order to keep United Airlines happy and investing in the Denver market. And that's what this deal is about.
Speaker 9: Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 1: What questions have been asked? Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Councilman Brown. And the questions or comments from members of council. Scene on Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Oracle Fox. No carnage. Layman Lopez. Monteiro Nevett. I. Ortega. I. Rob. I. Sheppard. Susman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes. One name.
Speaker 2: Both eyes one day. 686 has been ordered published. Let's go ahead and tee up the next one, which I believe is 684, called out by Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Ortega, what would you like to do?
Speaker 5: I have a question. I'd like to know if we have someone from Parks and Recreation here that can answer my question.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 7: Patrick Wheeler with the city attorney's office. I'm here in place of Fred Weiss, who happens to be off in Italy right now.
Speaker 5: Patrick, I have a question and this is for its approving the use agreement for something called the German American Chamber of Commerce that is going to be held at Skyline Park. And my question has to do with a process that the city had set up called. I can't even remember what it stands for now.
Speaker 0: Special events and permitting.
Speaker 5: Special events and permit. And I want to know if this is one of the events that sort of came through that process, because I remember sitting through a couple of meetings and was told that we weren't going to be permitting new things or new events because that sort of overtax our various city resources, whether it was police
|
Bill
|
Amends the contract with United Airlines by decreasing its unused leased space in return for an additional 10 years to the lease term. The total United lease term will be a total of 40 years expiring on 2-28-35 (XC 2X000-07). (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Amends the contract with United Airlines by decreasing its unused leased space in return for an additional 10 years to the lease term. The total United lease term will be a total of 40 years expiring on 2-28-35 (XC 2X000-07). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-19-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0684
|
Speaker 5: Special events and permit. And I want to know if this is one of the events that sort of came through that process, because I remember sitting through a couple of meetings and was told that we weren't going to be permitting new things or new events because that sort of overtax our various city resources, whether it was police service or, you know, the one guy in the city that works with all the special events. And so I was just trying to understand if this came through that process.
Speaker 7: Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 2: Councilman, I think I think I want to chime in. We're going to chime in.
Speaker 8: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega, this is not part of the process. This is an ongoing event that's been going on in Skyline Park for years. It's the Chris Kimball market, and it's strictly a parks permitting issue. It's not related to special events that are or more broadly discussed in that forum.
Speaker 5: So as we are doing what some neighborhoods might consider special events that are new, are are they still being permitted in the parks?
Speaker 8: The cap was on runs and races for the course of 2014, so no new runs and races for 2014.
Speaker 5: So that didn't apply.
Speaker 8: So events is is a slightly different conversation.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right. Thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Patrick.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Or take any other questions on 64 CNN. Madam Secretary, can you tee up next, one 698 called out by Councilwoman Monteiro. What would you like to do with this? I have.
Speaker 5: A question. Go right ahead, president. So Council Bill 698 approves an increase in certain admission and fees at the Denver Zoo. So if a representative from the Denver.
|
Bill
|
Authorizes a Park Use Agreement expiring on 12-31-14 with The German American Chamber of Commerce – Colorado Chapter in the amount of $13,461.25 for the use of Skyline Park as the venue for the annual Christkindle market multi-day event (201417104).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0698
|
Speaker 5: A question. Go right ahead, president. So Council Bill 698 approves an increase in certain admission and fees at the Denver Zoo. So if a representative from the Denver.
Speaker 0: Zoo would come up.
Speaker 5: Would appreciate it. If you could introduce yourself.
Speaker 10: Hi, I'm Shannon. I'm president and CEO of the Denver Zoo. I want to thank you, council president and the council members for being here today. It's an honor. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you for being here. Shannon, when you came to committee to talk.
Speaker 10: About.
Speaker 8: Your proposal to.
Speaker 5: Increase.
Speaker 6: Fees.
Speaker 10: Your r your.
Speaker 5: Presentation was very compelling as to why there is a need to increase the fees. Could you go over that? Especially because.
Speaker 0: People love the zoo.
Speaker 10: And this.
Speaker 5: Is a good opportunity.
Speaker 10: To talk about why you need that increase? Sure. So at a high level, there's several different areas and one of them is the increase in food costs we're seeing. I told you about Billy, our elephant who eats over £100 of hay and produce each each day. And the cost of hay, for example, has gone up 77%. Frozen food up 27%. Dry food up 18%. Groceries 16%. In addition, we are fortunate enough to have an animal hospital on site, but our veterinarian costs of caring for the animals has gone up. And I told you about Mr. Orangutan that has daily nebulizer treatments. When we look at our vet operation budget, it's up 51%, vaccinations up 100%, medications up 150%. Diagnostic testing up 108% since we last came in front of you. Also, our maintenance, we have over 100 and city building. Over 100 city buildings were over 118 years old. We have 85 acres and we've seen a 39% increase in our maintenance since the last time we were here. And that being said, I don't take price increases lightly. We are the public zoo. It's all about access and affordability. So we talked about this before, but I just want to remind council that 69% of our admission is free or discounted. Absolutely free admission. So you're not paying a penny to come to the zoo. That's over 350,000 people a year. It's valued at over $5 million. We have over nine free days scheduled for the next year. And then for anyone that's listening, if you're like, I really want to come to the zoo, but, you know, I don't have a car or I needed to find a meal tonight or something like that . How am I going to have access to the zoo? Well, we have something called a Red Apples scholarship fund where we've given over $1.5 million. And if you do Google, you can Google Denver Zoo and Red Apple to get access to those funds to come to the zoo for absolutely free. And families can use it. Teachers can use it. It's available to everyone in our community. And if you submit a request, we get back to within 48 hours. When we look at everyone that comes to the zoo overall over a over a year's time, I know one of the questions I get is, is it affordable? Is our zoo still affordable? Our average ticket price, when you kind of look at it all together and take an average, is $5.31. So I feel that we're still very assessable to the community, but it's something that I think about often and I don't take lightly.
Speaker 5: When when we were having our conversation in committee, there was a program.
Speaker 10: That.
Speaker 5: You had talked about working with.
Speaker 8: Other cultural.
Speaker 5: And Denver Parks Recreation. Do you have any news on that proposed program?
Speaker 10: Yeah, thank you. So I didn't mention that too. So two very wonderful programs, five by five. So five cultural arts by the time kids are five years old, is a program. And then the My Denver Card, which is also a fabulous program. And the zoo is involved in both of those, but it's much bigger than the zoo. It involves swimming pools, a museum of nature and science in several different areas. So.
Speaker 5: So you are going to be involved in the. Absolutely.
Speaker 10: Absolutely. So in the five by five program, currently 40% of the program redemptions come to the zoo. And we're going to continue to be involved and support those important community programs. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank, Shannon. Welcome. Congratulations on your new position. So I think Councilwoman Monteiro and you just answer most of my questions, but just a baseline question. I don't think we covered what's the increase, what's the cost now and what's the increase you're asking for?
Speaker 10: Yeah. So the increase in high season is $2 and in low season it's $1. And so if you look at I mean, there's only so many zoo comparables, but if you look at us compared to like Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. It's still cheaper, even though we're twice the acreage, many more animals, much more attendance.
Speaker 9: So so how much does it cost today.
Speaker 10: To go to. Right. So it's going to go from $15 to $17 in high season and $12 to $13 in the low season.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other questions or comments? All right. That was not called out. So we will go to the SEC. Go to the next one, which is bills for final consideration, which I believe, Madam Secretary. The first one was 620, caught out by Councilwoman Fox.
|
Bill
|
Approves an increase in certain admission and facility rental fees at the Denver Zoo (XC40345).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0620
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other questions or comments? All right. That was not called out. So we will go to the SEC. Go to the next one, which is bills for final consideration, which I believe, Madam Secretary. The first one was 620, caught out by Councilwoman Fox. What would you like for us to do with this, Councilwoman?
Speaker 6: Please put it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 2: Certainly will. Councilman Brooks, would you please have 620 place on the floor for final consideration?
Speaker 9: Certainly, Mr. President, I put Council Bill 620 on the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is the creation of an affordable housing funding mechanism. If you believe Denver should be funding affordable workforce housing, the fund is structured well. So my problem, my problems are not with the structure of the fund. My problem is that it has already been stated that the intention is to ask for general general fund money to go into it. Now, last year, general fund money was appropriated with the idea that a fund would be created. And at that time, I had thought I had a compromise with the administration that it would be a one time funding mechanism. And in fact, they are the ones that described it as one time. And now here we go again. So that that's a problem for me. If this is going to be a mechanism that just continually siphons general fund money off by using general fund people who earn less, like many of the people in my area will be seeing their city taxes siphoned off for housing for people who actually earn more than they do. Remember workforce housing. We're not talking about homeless. We're not talking about the poor, such as the Denver Housing Authority serves. We are talking about workforce housing. And I am not willing to short city services that people think they're paying for in order to siphon the money to an affordable housing fund for workforce housing, which the city has shown it can put on some of the highest real estate in this city. So I will be voting no.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Foster. Any other comments from members of council? Seeing Madam Secretary role go.
Speaker 6: But no.
Speaker 4: Carnage. Layman Lopez Montero I nevett i. Ortega I Rob Shepherd. Susman. Brooks Brown.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and out the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes, one knee, 12 eyes.
Speaker 2: One is comfortable. 620 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Madam Secretary, I think the last one was Council Bill 629 called out by Councilwoman Ortega. That will not come to a question. Go right ahead.
Speaker 5: I don't know if we have someone here from our city's asset office sky. Can you help answer a question? So I don't know what the zoning is on this property. I know exactly where the parcel is and I'm just trying to figure out what it is that the buyer plans to do with the property. Do we have any idea?
Speaker 8: Lisa Lumley from Real Estate is not here this evening, but I'll have her get back to you. I think she has had conversations with the purchaser about what their intention is, but I do not recall that off the top of my head.
Speaker 5: Okay. Mr. President, I will vote for its passage. Well, it's it some final.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, if I may. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 0: So I chaired a committee that this came through on consent, and I was actually going to ask Councilwoman Sheppard, this is in her district, and she did a little due diligence on it before we put it on consent. And I don't want to put you on the spot, Councilwoman Sheppard, but you may be able to answer the question. And if not, we can certainly.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Can each councilman I tell you what I recall in the discussion was I was concerned about the historic property that is part of this parcel. And so I was asking what was going to happen to the historic property there. And I was not told what the larger redevelopment was, but I was told that the developer would continue to keep the historic property that it's there and incorporate it into the overall development. But I did not learn what the larger redevelopment was.
Speaker 5: So we don't know if it's a mixed use or if it's just housing or if it's going to be commercial.
Speaker 8: I don't know that at this time.
Speaker 5: Okay. I would appreciate hearing from our real estate office to learn more about what is proposed on the site.
Speaker 8: We'll get you that information here.
Speaker 2: All right. That was all of them, I believe. And I'll just quickly look up and down. I believe we got them all. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Brooks, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 9: Why, certainly, Mr. President, I put the following bills on the floor for resolution to be adopted in a block. Others 2014 653 667 696 679, 683, 742 and 743.
|
Bill
|
Approves the creation of a Special Revenue Fund serving as a revolving loan fund for the specific purpose of creating new affordable housing for the workforce rental population in Denver. (FINANCE & SERVICES) The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-12-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08252014_14-0682
|
Speaker 2: Proclamations. We do have one proclamation this evening. Proclamation 682 and council members. Will you please read Proclamation 682?
Speaker 0: Why, certainly, Mr. President. Thank you. Proclamation number 682 Recognizing and Celebrating Denver Sister Cities International Worldwide Festival on September seven, 2014. Whereas, following the mayhem of the World War Two in 1948, Denver Sister Cities International was founded with a relationship with Breast France and Denver and now has two friendship cities and ten sister cities, each of which have a public part name in its honor as a tribute to the importance of these relationships. And. Whereas, Denver Sister. Cities International is seeking to raise its visibility, grow its awareness and its global relationships and programs in concert with the city's expanding international economic and cultural studies strategy. And. WHEREAS, Denver Sister Cities International Worldwide Festival on September 7th will celebrate the art, music, food, dance stories, culture of our ten sister cities and into friendship cities, as well as the beautiful diversity of Denver itself. And. Whereas, Denver's Worldwide Festival will entertain and educate in an accessible and inclusive manner, as befits the mission of Denver Sister Cities International. And. WHEREAS, Metro delegates from each of Denver sister cities have been formally invited to participate in Denver Worldwide Festival. And. WHEREAS, The City and county of Denver and Denver Sister Cities International have a strong and mutually supportive, cooperative relationship. Now, therefore, be a proclaim by the accounts of the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Council heartily endorses Denver's Worldwide Festival as a celebration of the cultures and diversity of Denver sister cities, friendship cities and Denver itself. And section to that. The Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmitted copy thereof to Denver Sister Cities International.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember X your motion to adopt.
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 680 to be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved in. Second comments from members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I many of my council colleagues know this, and some of the folks in the city of Denver know that I'm a strong advocate in and support of Denver sister cities. It is an organization that has has a lot of history in the city of Denver. But right about when Mayor Web went out of office, there was such a city that kind of went dormant because he was such a strong advocate of it. And since Mayor Hancock has been in office, it has it is it is gearing back up to really grow and be an effective multisector approach type of organization. I've been really involved and I actually got excited about the research of cities because of some nonprofit work that I've done in Nairobi, Kenya. But after seeing how relationships actually catalyzes, development catalyzes a strong tie with cities, I've become a believer, a wholehearted believer in Denver sister cities, and have been able to participate in some programs with Denver Sisters City International in DC sat on a couple of panels talking about what? What does it mean to have a meaningful relationship with another city where it's not just cultural engagements, but it's also talking about outreaching to young people, talking about exchange is talking about economic development opportunities. And so I'm a I'm a believer. And, you know, we get this program. This is a nonprofit. They are not what the city of Denver, you know, some people think that they probably should be, but they're not with the city of Denver. They're a nonprofit program. And we invest probably anywhere in the neighborhood of $20,000, somewhere around there. I think Beth Hendricks, the executive director, let me know. And I believe that is a steal, because just for one delegation to fly here and stay in Denver, a delegation of 15 folks like we have with Nairobi, it is $50,000. And so it is a return on investment to begin building relationships with other other cities internationally. Someone who's doing a great job with that is San Francisco. San Francisco has 26 or so. They say we'll take what anybody wants to be a friendship city and a sister cities. Come on. And what they do is every time there's a delegation from one of their sister cities or friendship cities, they fly the flag right outside the mayor's office. The mayor greets them and then they go meet with folks from economic development. They go meet with the folks from visit Denver, they go meet with the cultural institution folks. And I said, Man, that's a great idea. And because of that, they're finding that these countries and these cities are beginning to invest into San Francisco. And so I hope it's something that we can grow into. And I want to say one more thing on one of the trips. That we were trying to build a relationship with Kunming, China. There's so much interest from China, especially in Denver, because they feel like the port cities are oversaturated and they really like the availability of DIA. And this has gotten. Paul Washington, our executive director of the Economic Development, so busy that he has hired someone over international trade, Abdul Sosa. And and so this, you know, this these little relationships with these places have kind of grown into a serious effort, economic effort for a city. And we need to continue to encourage our Sister Cities International. And so I'm excited for this worldwide festival where we've invited every Denver sister cities, officials and mayors. I hope I hope we get maybe five, ten mayors to come by here and enjoy Denver and we'll show them a good time, do another proclamation if they all come and continue to support this incredible organization. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, do we have any other comments from members of council and c. None. Madam Secretary?
Speaker 1: Rocco Brooks Hi. Brown. I thought I can eat lemon LOPEZ Montero. Nevitt Hi. Ortega Hi, Rob Shepherd. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please cast your vote. And now the results. 3939 as proclamation has been adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there anyone you like to bring up to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 0: Just one of the hardest working executive directors that is working part time for us right now, Beth Hendricks, to come up and receive this right.
Speaker 2: Right here, the right to the podium either.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. And to all esteemed members of Denver City Council, it's truly an honor to be here and to accept this proclamation on behalf of Denver Sister Cities International.
Speaker 1: Since 1948, we've been working to promote respect, understanding and direct friendships.
Speaker 6: Among people of differing.
Speaker 1: Cultures through Denver Sister City relationships. We're proud to represent the city of.
Speaker 6: Denver on a global scale, and we hope that you all will come to our worldwide festival on September 7th in the McNichols Building in Civic Center Park.
Speaker 1: The event is free and open to the public.
Speaker 6: I hope to see you all there. Thank you very much for this honor.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember, for bringing this forward. That was our only proclamation. So we are now, now ready for the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing and celebrating Denver Sister Cities International's Worldwide Festival on September 7, 2014.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08252014_14-0620
|
Speaker 7: Thank you. I move that council bill 620 series of 2014 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that creates a special revenue fund, which is an affordable housing revenue fund. If one were evaluating this ordinance only on the design of the special revenue fund it creates. It's thoughtfully constructed to combine numerous sources of money toward an affordable housing goal. The Office of Economic Development delivered what the mayor intended. However, funds don't exist in a vacuum. This one presents several problems and issues, and I like to talk about what I see as those problems and issues. First was a massive disappointment to me. The intention stated by OED, the Office of Economic Development in committee to seek more general fund money to seed it contradicts what I have been assured by the administration during the last budget cycle. You know, when a person goes to great lengths to compromise, you really expect that compromise to be upheld. What was postured as one time funding in the 2014 budget now has morphed into a way to potentially siphon off millions each year short in key basic city functions. A second issue is just I want people to understand this is not the only effort that we are doing about affordable housing. Many other funding sources exist just to name a few. There's housing for persons with AIDS, home funds, community development block grant money, inclusionary housing funds, still private activity bonds, Denver's Road Home, and the Denver Housing Authority, which actually does perhaps the best job. It's not as if the city isn't making headway. The third thing, though, and perhaps is most important, especially given the conversation of some of my colleagues tonight, is the conversation about affordable housing. Now, when I hear terms like the unanimity of all these task force, I can guarantee you, based on what I'm going to say, that a number of the mainstream people from my district were not a part of that discussion. This fund is based on the premise that our citizens feel it's the city's responsibility to supply taxpayer subsidized housing for workforce housing. That's a higher income level than any of the other sources allow. And because of the social engineering aspect that the city likes to put in place, we can expect to see subsidized housing built on more expensive land. Driving up construction costs. One of the reasons taxpayers around the metro area, including Denver voters, funded fast tracks, was to give access to work places for more affordable metro areas. Billions of dollars have already been invested with more to come. But city officials want Denver workers to be able to live in Denver. That's one of the key premises of this. This is not just about housing, about shelter. There's another agenda afloat. I wanted to assess what my constituents think about the city's role in affordable housing. So on this your citizens survey, I asked this question. Housing prices are rising, inventory is low, and wages remain stagnant, making Denver increasingly unaffordable for many people who work in Denver businesses. Now, I think most of you would agree that's a very fair statement. Is it the city, the city's club? Is it the city government's responsibility to see that housing is affordable for people who work in the city? The survey just went out, so I have only a week's worth of responses, but that already equates to 1287 individuals . Only 21% said yes. It's not a scientific survey, but it clearly shows the trends and an internal thinking of the majority of people in my district. And I know from having done these surveys in the past, how to expect those numbers to move when the remainder come in. I also asked if the city should provide developers financial incentives to build affordable workforce housing. Now, that's exactly what this fund does. 30% said yes. To understand that, I mean, 70% said no. Moreover, some of the people in my some of the people who live in my district earn less than the people intended to be subsidized by this fund. Remember, it's workforce housing. It's not very low income housing. Which brings me to where I started. Using general fund moneys means they are subsidizing people who earn more than they earn. And money will be taken away from city services they thought they were paying for. I cannot support this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to invite our new housing director, if I may, to ask him to describe the families that will be served by this fund so we can get that clarified before I make a comment. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Just go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.
Speaker 4: I sure will. My name is Rick Padilla. I'm the new morphing into the recently hired housing director, and we are further into the job than it was last week when I was called up. So I will do my best to answer your question. Describe those folks. So thank you and good evening, council members. And thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. For folks we're talking about in a 40 to 60% area, median income we're talking about, I think it was mentioned earlier, we were talking about lab technicians and nursing assistant making approximately 29,000 a year, a construction worker making approximately $31,000 a year , a vet technician making approximately $31,000 a year. Those are the folks we're actually talking about, security guard, senior citizens, the folks that make the a large percentage of our of our households in Denver, folks who want to remain to live in Denver, people that want to move into Denver.
Speaker 1: And then when one question the comment was made that we're making headway on the need for housing. And I was just wondering, is that what the data shows? Are we is the knee are we catching up to the need for housing in terms of how many housing units we need to serve families like these or who earn less?
Speaker 4: As we all know, you know, I'm a Denver neighborhood native. I was born and raised here. We all know that Denver's a landlocked city. We have a couple of large developments when there where there has been production on a limited basis. But most of the housing that we see going in is infill housing. The the condominiums are 4 to 6 units. It's not really meeting the needs of production where, as you stated earlier, we have a shrinking inventory in this city as well as across the country. So from a production standpoint, we're not seeing new construction come up to meet the needs of these households.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And if I may, Mr. President, a comment. So I you know, I was listening to my colleague who I respect and differ from on this issue, cite the number of people who said they were willing to pay for housing. I've seen recent surveys that asked people their willingness to pay for roads, and I think only slightly more, maybe 30 or 40% willing to pay for roads. Yet we as a city stay in the road building business because it is our job as a public sector to serve public needs. I do believe that there is not just a benefit to these households when we build this housing at this level, but there is a benefit to our economy. A recent survey from the Denver Regional Council of Governments of major employers across the country, found that Denver's housing prices were reaching the level where they were giving relocation pause . Because when you relocate from Cincinnati to Denver, your employees don't want half the house that they had or half the apartment or to commute for an hour because their salary is the same. But the housing costs twice as much. And so it is a threat to our ability to recruit new employers. Right. This is it's not a charitable issue solely. I do think that it is a humane thing to do to try to keep people in homes rather than homeless. But it is an economic strategy as well to attract employers who hire those workers. I'll go back to transportation is one example. When workers travel from large distances, they lose productivity, they lose time. And yes, the transit system is wonderful. There is precisely one transit stop that's, you know, funded in Adams County right now. Many of our workers travel from that area. They don't have a fast transit option. Even when fast tracks is fully built out, it doesn't reach every community. And so what you have then is people who drive cost more for transportation, even environmental impacts. And then lastly, I will say something about my opinion of the growth of Denver, people coming to Denver. I mean, every time you see a new battery, 621 or industry, one of these new great business incubators and they're relocating high tech smart jobs, folks are choosing to come to the city because they like the diversity of the city. It is something we sell. We sell the mixture of incomes, the mix of people, the mix of racial backgrounds. And so I believe that it is really key to our economy that we invest in this housing. It is not just for the human benefits, although there are many. And so I would say that I very much appreciate this fund as a well-designed structure, and I really do think it's an important first step. And I will hopefully continue the conversation about funding it in the future. But it is very much a city's role and we are a city and a county and we're one of only eight cities that doesn't have a fund like this that we fund with our own dollars. So our competitors are doing it where it counts. We're responsible for all the human services costs. So I just can't accept and there is no evidence to support that this is not a city responsibility. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kinney. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Canete, you took the words right out of my mouth, except for the one analogy I wanted to use. Was it? It all depends. And the example I want to put out there and just you can visualize it. It all depends what you believe. Our values are in the city. Some people believe when they look in the mirror as a city. When we look in the mirror, we see Manhattan or Coronado or Beverly Hills or even Martha's Vineyard. And you look in the mirror when you look out and look what Denver is, it's Denver. It's none of the above. It is Denver. And it's always been of a very distinct city, an incredible county. We've taken a lot of pride, especially nowadays. And you see this. I even see old Raiders fans wearing t shirts with Colorado flags all over them because it's cool now. We have a very strong sense of locality. We put a lot of pride. Those of us who are from here, we put that little native sticker on our car and it's much more than just putting that sticker on your car that says Native and saying, Oh, I'm a proud Coloradan. Well, we also have very strong values that are locally grown as well, too. And making sure you have access to affordable housing and making sure you have a good job and able to raise your family. That's those values. That's all folks are asking about. And, you know, I do agree with one thing with you, councilman. Fights wages are stagnant and that is a problem. But that's another discussion that we have to have. Housing. There's a housing crisis in terms of affordability, affordability, affordability, affordability, sorry. And there is a crisis when it comes to wages, a crisis when it comes to folks who are working, spending 12, 13, 14 hours a day in two jobs. They don't have health care and they don't have a decent wage. And you pair those two together and you mix that up. You do not have a city that reflects the values that it was built on. It's not the Denver I remember. And so we have to correct that. And, you know, if if I'm wrong, then those folks who vote for these things won't be back. But if I do remember correctly, some of these policies have been here since the eighties. You seen a little bit of tinkering. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, specifically. You can go ahead and take your seat unless someone else calls you up. Thank you, sir. Councilman. Never.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. As is so often the case, Councilwoman Fatima, I read the details in the same way, but come to radically different conclusions. We both look at city expenditures with a gimlet eye, but where she sees wasteful social engineering, I see a really smart investment. And it's worth remembering here that this isn't just a fund to put general fund money into affordable housing. This is a fund whose purpose is to close the gap for 4% low income housing tax credit deals. So the 9% low income housing tax credit deals are incredibly competitive. All that goes like hotcakes. But 4% low income housing tax credits go wanting projects don't even get built because they can't pencil with just the 4% low income housing tax credit. So this fund is designed to close that gap so that the.
Speaker 0: 4% low.
Speaker 4: Income housing tax credit projects can actually get built.
Speaker 0: So what this is, is using a.
Speaker 4: Little bit of our money to leverage a whole lot of somebody else's money. And that, it strikes me, is exactly what a smart city does. Figure out how to spend other people's money in making our city a better place. So for that reason, I'll be supporting them.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other comments from members of council saying. No, Madam Secretary. Rocco?
Speaker 1: Councilman.
Speaker 2: Oh, councilman here. I'm sorry. Go right ahead.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just couldn't click fast enough. I just. I just wanted to make a comment about the idea of social engineering and the negative impacts that it's had in my council district nine. What I've learned over the years is that. Is that whether it was the intention or the an intention. In my opinion, the way that the land at one point of Denver's history was divided and zoned created a big gap in terms of inequity. And and so when I think about the concept of social engineering, I would say that many of the low income neighborhoods in Denver didn't fare so well. And that with the zoning code update, as I said when we went through that, we really zoned a lot of the the parcels in in this city to try to create some equity around the land. Now we're talking about you're saying why are we talking about this? Well, here a simple way that I want to say it is that this revolving affordable this revolving affordable housing loan, in my opinion, will help to hopefully minimize the gap between people living, wanting to get out of poverty and having a job and having the the ability as these units are being built or if they already exist, but not in my council district yet, just they have the ability to have a more equitable life. And by that I mean if, for example, I'm Brighton Boulevard, our hope is to create more workforce housing so that the people that can't really afford to live in some places in downtown Denver for were many of them may have service types of careers. They can actually live very close to downtown and be able to walk if they'd like to, or also the ability to create communities where workforce housing can be part of the tax base and also to create schools and create all of those things in a community where we can see the diversity that Councilman Kinney just talked about. So I would say that social engineering is a very, very strong word in my opinion. And I don't agree that this particular revolving, affordable housing fund creates that kind of community. In my opinion, it helps to minimize the gap that we're all talking about that we have seen created in in the city of Denver. And so I just want to say that for me, in the time that I've served, it's always been about the land and who owns it, who can afford it. And we're just simply trying to have more opportunity for funding to be able to look at workforce housing. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I wanted to clarify my perception of what I mean by social engineering, and it's why I voted against the Burke's amendment that he brought for the inclusionary housing. The to me, if you're talking about affordable housing, you want a structure around as many people as you can. You want your money to go farther. And when you try to be sure that you are building it in every economic level throughout the city, you are not going to get as much housing if you are building it downtown or elsewhere. That would be of a high income nature because the land costs are so high. I believe we have a responsibility if we are using the taxpayer dollar to get the most we can. And if what with the issue is housing, then build the most housing you can. And it is not on the land that is the highest real estate in Denver. That is my perspective on that, obviously. I mean, I was just being interviewed earlier today about my impressions between the legislature and here. And one of the biggest things is there there was there were a number of people of different philosophies. And so you could have it wasn't just me against the row here. You had other people who could bring in their experiences and their perspective, and you had a good philosophical discussion about the very basis of policy making. That is what I miss here. I mean, just having some kind of real discussion, not one against many, but many of as far as what. Is our role. Well, how do we get the most taxpayer dollar? Is the benefit that you see from putting affordable housing into extremely high real estate areas. Do you really get the investment out of it that you want from other ways? I mean, there are some philosophical issues that need to be discussed in policymaking bodies that simply don't get addressed at the depth that they should in this body and hasn't since I've been on here. But it was in the legislature, and that's what I see as a big difference and a big lacking. I really want that kind of discussion. The people deserve it. Now, regardless of how you come down and, you know, city council, it's it's no question as to how they're going to come down. But that discussion is one that still should be be happening. So people really have to think about the results of what decisions they make. And so thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to express that frustration, because I consider the very basis of all the policies and decisions we make, not ones that can be decided on assumptive closes, as you would say, if you were in the sales business where you go and you assume the person's got to buy. Now let's talk about the price. You really need to talk about the fundamental basics as well, because those are the elements and the building blocks of public policy.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Upon seen no other comments and I'll pause for a second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Five or so in each. I. Lehman i. Lopez Montero. I. Nevett. I. Ortega. I. Rob. Shepherd. Sussman, Brooks. I. Brown.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I count Councilman Lopez. Woman Madam Secretary, please quote the value and now the results.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes one.
Speaker 2: Day. Well, one day. 620 has been ordered, published. And, Madam Secretary, can you tee up the last one, which was on final consideration 598 called out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?
|
Bill
|
Approves the creation of a Special Revenue Fund serving as a revolving loan fund for the specific purpose of creating new affordable housing for the workforce rental population in Denver. (FINANCE & SERVICES) The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-12-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08252014_14-0598
|
Speaker 2: Day. Well, one day. 620 has been ordered, published. And, Madam Secretary, can you tee up the last one, which was on final consideration 598 called out by Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Fox, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 7: Please put it on the floor for the expected vote.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilwoman Layman, can you please please 598 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I move the Council Bill 598 series of 2014 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Is then moved in segment comments. Councilman Foxx.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I am seeing one gigantic grab bag that says, surprise, this is this is a loan that we are making $750,000 and we don't have a clue what it's for other than lifestyle, entertainment, $750,000 for a lifestyle entertainment loan, and they will not tell us what it is. So I'm going to vote no.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Fox, any other comments from members of the council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just want to ask someone from OED if they can come up. John, maybe.
Speaker 4: Good evening, John Lucio, the deputy director of the OED.
Speaker 6: So, John, is there any more you can tell us about this project at this point in time?
Speaker 4: At this time, we cannot it hasn't been finalized yet. The negotiations are still going on.
Speaker 6: So why why are we bringing this forward at this time? So it's not clear what those.
Speaker 4: Negotiations are going to be. So the borrower is using a he's banking on a tenant to support the cash flow for the loans, the loans actually to the property owner for the acquisition. But we can't disclose who. And that's very common in economic development. We can't disclose who this is at this time.
Speaker 6: I know this came to committee. We had lengthy discussions with the the property owner who is working on the project. And it sounds like a very interesting and exciting concept. But I just wanted to know if there was any more that you all have seen move forward that would allow you to share with us. So at this point, you're saying.
Speaker 4: At this point I haven't done it is.
Speaker 6: And at what point will you be able to disclose that with us.
Speaker 4: As soon as the tenants and their landlord reach an agreement? If we if we disclose who this business is coming from out of town, we could jeopardize the entire deal. So at this point, we don't want to we cannot do that.
Speaker 6: How typical is it that you do this type of a deal here?
Speaker 4: Several times we negotiate with companies from out of state or corporations and quite a few businesses over. You cannot disclose who they are until the very last second. So that's an important. But that's what it is.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Neville.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. This was the expected vote from Councilwoman Fox and the expected response from me saying things the same way, but coming to a different conclusion. I too, would have a lot of skepticism over a deal for a mystery tenant. I'm not in the habit of buying a pig in a poke, but the the the the developers in this case have an amazing track record. These are the geniuses behind Battery 621 and industry. And that's that's a group I'm willing to gamble on, as well as the excellent work that's been done by the Office of Economic Development . Vetting this deal. So while it is unusual, while it is something that, you know, I wouldn't ordinarily eagerly embrace, this seems like a worthy bet.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Nevett. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. John Lucero Since I was not in committee, I want to ask you a question that I hope you can address, though I may not like the answer since you can't tell us the tenant and I understand that that could jeopardize closing the deal. Correct? I want to know if the tenant doesn't come, what issuances OPD has that this is still a solid loan. Is it just that the group has a good reputation? What sort of backing did they give you? How do we know that this is going to be a strong place for us to be and not something that you come back to in two years or four years and renegotiate? Councilwoman fights won't be here then, but her echo will be, I'm sure, and she'll be saying, I'm not loaning to this group again. Right.
Speaker 4: So the again, the loan is based is to the borrower and we're very confident to our underwriting that we well leveraged with the assets of the transaction and the guarantees. So and we were hoping to be able to tell you who the tenant would be. It would be exciting when we can do that. And then if that tenant has not come through, the borrower does have the ability to pay the loan and seek another tenant.
Speaker 1: Payday loan right at the time.
Speaker 4: Where you can. Yes, exactly. So it's been it's been underwritten as a loan. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb, any other comments from members of council scene? None, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. President. One might concur that the last two Monday nights in this chamber represent lifestyle entertainment. Perhaps we should charge an entertainment tax. But any event, the the BET analogy got me because when I bet, I bet with my own money, not the city's money. So I'm going to be voting no on this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 0: Yes. I'd just like to make a little correction. This is not an industry development. This is a development by Bernard and Camille Hurley and their property owners on on Brighton. And. But I still would like to echo Councilman Neville's sentiments. This is these are owners that are ferociously working to redevelop Brighton. And they're working with other property owners. They do have a track record. Unfortunately, you know, as John stated in economic development deals, this happens all the time when you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement on who the business might be until all the finances have been worked out. So I definitely respect my council colleagues, but the Office of Economic Development is doing what they have been tasked to do. Make investments in parts of the city where the market is not. And so they are tasked to take some risks. And so they're doing that. But this is a this is definitely a sure bet. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week I voted for this, and it really bothered me that I did it because I, as a council representative for this district, had not been briefed that this was coming forward. And they waited all week and still no phone call. I don't even have the level of which some would say it's your fault duty. But, you know, so to the level that some of my other colleagues have and so I'm going to be abstaining. I'm not comfortable with this at all. And if somebody wants to take the time and call me, that's great. But no one took the time at all to call. And I represent this council district and would have would have more of an expectation that I should have been contacted. So I just got to encourage my colleagues to vote the way that they feel is the most appropriate for me. I'm just going to abstain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Any other comments from members of council seeing none. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 1: Thoughts? No. Can each. After that? Lehman Yes. Lopez I.
Speaker 6: Monteiro Thing.
Speaker 1: Nevitt, I. Ortega, I. Rob. Shepherd. Pass. Susman. Right. Brooks. Brown.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Shepard. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega, are you called?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Okay.
Speaker 2: And then Councilwoman Shepard goes hanging. Fire.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: After Arthur died. All right. There. We got it. Madam Secretary, please close the very announced results.
Speaker 1: Minus two names. One abstention.
Speaker 2: 92 nays, one abstention. 598 does pass on final consideration. All right. I believe that all the bills that were called out so we are ready for the block votes, all of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Lyman, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
|
Bill
|
Approves a ten-year loan agreement in the amount of $750,000 to Menalto LLC to facilitate the acquisition of the property at 3727 Delgany to accommodate business relocation within the Brighton corridor in Council District 9. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) Approves a ten-year loan agreement in the amount of $750,000 to Menalto LLC to facilitate the acquisition of the property at 3727 Delgany to accommodate business relocation within the Brighton corridor in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this at its meeting on 8-5-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08252014_14-0522
|
Speaker 2: Be assured, however, that by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during the public hearing. Councilwoman Lehman, will you please put Council Bill 522 on the floor?
Speaker 7: I move the council bill 532 series of.
Speaker 1: 2014.
Speaker 7: Be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: And moved and seconded the combined public hearing for council bills 522, five, 23 and 524 is open. Speakers may address any or all of these bills. Council members at the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each bill. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Tina Axler for Community Planning and Development President Herndon It's my understanding that I am to go through and do the staff presentation for the three separate applications consecutively without taking a break in between. I might take a breath, but.
Speaker 0: Not a real problem.
Speaker 5: Okay. I want to just sort of apologize in advance because I'm pinch hitting for a sick colleague who was supposed to do this presentation tonight. So it's going to be a little choppy for me, I'm sure, and I'll be reading more than I usually do. So bear with me. And thank you for the water, Kelli, to get me through this. So tonight we have the what's commonly known as the Berkeley Annex three rezoning applications for the that cover portions of the 70 acre site. There are three applications in front of you council bills, five, 22, five, 23 and 524. Going to walk through each each application separately. They cover three different parts of the 70 acres. They do not total 70 acres. You're going to see more Buckley Annex rezoning applications in the near future for the remaining parts. So these are all rezonings for future planned residential development within the Buckley Annex redevelopment area. And so with that, I will start first. This is Council Bill 522. This is a request for a rezoning of a portion of the Buckley Annex. And here we'll walk you through its location, approximately Monaco and First Avenue. It's within the Lowry Field statistical neighborhood. We're beginning to hone in. So you can see more specifically where this is. This covers, I think, about 14, 15 acres in the northwest corner of the Buckley annexed property. Its context is immediately south of the Mayfair neighborhood, east across Moore Park and across Moore Park neighborhood and close to the north, the existing north with the Lowry neighborhood that's comprised of single unit housing and the like. The Schlozman library site you might be familiar with at the corner of First and Quebec. This provide this slide provides a brief history about the Buckley Annex and its plans for ultimately its redevelopment. It was the a federal facility, of course, through this from the seventies through as recently as 2005, when the comprehensive plan was done and the reuse plan for Lowry was done and blueprint Denver. There was no knowledge at that point in time that this portion of the Lowry field would be available for redevelopment. So it was not planned for redevelopment nor mentioned in the early reuse plans. But in 2005, the Department of Defense, the Air Force, announced the closure of this portion of Lowry Field as well, and the relocation of all federal services offsite in 2008, the Buckley Annex redevelopment plan was completed by the quasi governmental entity of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. The Redevelopment Authority is a quasi governmental body that has the authority given to it by the City Council of Denver to plan for the ultimate redevelopment of Lowry. The Buckley Annex redevelopment plan was not adopted by the city, but adopted by the Redevelopment Authority. After a very comprehensive and wide ranging public discussion and public planning process. This redevelopment plan provided a clear framework for land use and transportation, including specifying residential areas, mixed use areas, even recommending specific building height limitations, a proposal for a new , interconnected street grid within the 70 acre site and additional parks and open space to add to the Lowry neighborhood in 2011. This The Buckley Annex was vacated by the Air Force and in 2012 the transfer of the property to the LRA was completed. In 2013 we began the city processes for planning the redevelopment of the Buckley Annex and that began with a general development plan that was approved by the city in 2013. I'll be talking a little bit more about that in a bit. This is the analysis and an illustrative of future plans for redevelopment as they stand today for the Buckley Annex. Consistent with the redevelopment plan and the general development plan that have been approved, you can see shaded in the upper left hand corner, a residential area that is the focus of. The first application for rezoning this is 14 acres. Again, the owners are the Lourey Redevelopment Authority. The plan for this area and the intent of the rezoning is for redevelopment into new single family housing. Currently it zoned 010 is does not stand for open space as you might think. We don't know what it stands for. It's an old code zone district that allows a weird mix of uses, which I can tell you a little bit more about, but it didn't really fit with the vision for the redevelopment. So the new zone that this application requests is for as a single unit, a as you daresay in within our urban neighborhood context with waivers and the urban the you assume a zoning is our most our smallest lot and most intensive our single unit zoning in Denver it was drafted reflective of some existing patterns a small lot single families scattered throughout the city of Denver. Waivers are requested to customize our U.S. use own district to fit the vision of the Lowrey redevelopment plan and modify some of the Urban House building form standards in our otherwise standard USDA zoned district. Specifically, the waiver is to make modifications to the Urban House building form, essentially to sub out what's in our Denver zoning code with a more customized urban house building for table. In the application, you have the application as an addendum to each staff report in your packets and the specific and what ultimately will be adopted language for the waivers are in the application. A summary of the waivers is found in the staff report for this application on page six. So in addition to waiving out the Urban House form that's otherwise applicable in our zoning code, we've also done a similar waiver to customize the formed standards for detached accessory structures like the garage in the back. And then finally, the third waiver has to do very specifically with a proposed pattern of development that's more of a courtyard, single family development that faces an internal open space rather than a street. So there was need for a waiver regarding limits on the number of primary structures on the zone lot. Okay. We're actually going to talk through that last waiver, first known as waiver number three. Generally in a single family zoned district on any zone lot in the city of Denver that zoned you as you say, you get one house on one zone lot and that's pretty norm. And that works really well for established neighborhoods in the city of Denver. But what we have here in Lowry is a desire shown in the slide to do some creative site planning still single family, but turning some portion of single family homes to face not a public street, but a neighborhood green or park. So in order to accommodate that that new pattern and bring a bit of diversity to the site, a waiver has been requested to allow a single cell not to contain more than one house. So that's what waiver number three does. It's it's confined very specifically to this new type of pattern. You can't do this if you have a zone that that can, you know, face that doesn't face a common green waivers one and two, which are two the urban house building form and the detached accessory structures are summarized again on page six of the staff report. And here on this slide to boil it down, it essentially allows these homes to be a bit taller and a bit bulkier, sit more shoulder to shoulder and not necessarily step down in height from front to rear, as we have in our more typical urban single unit zone districts like Congress Park or Wash Park, it does allow a more bulkier form. So you'll see the change between the standard USDA standards and the first column of the slide versus what is proposed in the waiver. Shown in the second column, we have an increase in height for the rear third from 17 feet to 35 feet, and essentially allow that two and a half family or two and a half storey building to fill fill the lot, not break from the front two thirds to the rear third nobo claim we have a shallower setback allowance reduced from. 2210. Again, because of this infill condition we have, which is more of a a wide open slate, you're not trying to fit in the House to an existing context. There's a little more flexibility they needed on that primary street setback, which I'll talk about a little bit more rare setback, similarly has been reduced when there is an alley from 12 to 5 feet and building coverage present lot in terms of a maximum has been removed through the waivers again to allow more coverage, less deliberately , less open space, a different style and type of housing that's relatively low maintenance and deemed desirable by certainly some market segments. In Denver, what you get is very similar to what's already been built in Lowry East to Quebec and not too dissimilar from a lot of the single family development in other greenfield communities like Stapleton. Again, changes in waiver number two are to that detached accessory structure. These are typically garages found in the rear the lot here again, we the waivers allow a bulkier, taller, detached accessory structure, noble plane. It can be built essentially to the same height as the main house with a reduced side street setback. Waivers are still enabled by the Denver zoning code. It is an option that can be used in this case. After a lot of deliberation and talks back and forth between the applicant and staff and the counsel office, the applicant chose to go with waivers. We consider it at CPD a bit of a case study in what to do with an infill greenfield site like this, where a more dense form is required without change in the overall single family density. Most areas of change, as this Buckley Annex is designated in Blueprint, Denver typically call for mixed use, high densities. And as I'll talk about further, we didn't really have a zoned district on the books, a standard USDA that fit exactly what the redevelopment plans and the GDP called for. It's interesting to note as a bit of a sidebar and as to why CPD felt comfortable with waivers in this case, is that the code already has built into it a lot of flexibility and provisions to do these same types of modifications to building form, grant a little extra height, play with the ball plane, step up that rear height if it matches an existing context. We have something called a primary block sensitive primary street block sensitive setback where if you're tearing down a house in the middle of a intact block face, you've got essentially match what's already there. And that might end up being less than a 20 foot setback as required in the otherwise uniform standards. And that's perfectly all right to again facilitate context sensitive development. Similarly, the code allows staff to make administrative adjustments again to height in storeys and in feet to allow some flexibility on a case by case basis to someone who wants to build something that, when they look around, looks like everything else and it's neighborhood. But the code, you know, built and drafted at a more higher level didn't get down to that. We knew couldn't get down to that level of context sensitivity, but we enabled it through a procedure. So it's just an interesting sidebar that this is not that new way of approach to thinking of what we do with building form standards in the code. But we need it in this case because there is no existing context. We've got a 70 acre vacant site that's being built. We need to build in that same flexibility and that's why we chose the waivers. One of the reasons we chose the waivers. Every rezoning application goes through a city review. In summary, there were no substantive negative reactions from our sister agencies and departments in the city. The first submittal from the applicant did spark a substantive comment from CPD and that was the first submittal included a request for a waiver to require parking spaces for a single unit development. Right now in the entire Denver zoning code, as it as it exists today and the former Denver zoning code as it existed prior to 2010, Denver has never had a minimum parking requirement in a single family zoned district. So the old are zero one the new RSU. You start at zero and developers build what they what they think is new. Needed. So speed felt strongly there was no no reason to shift that policy in this particular zoning request. And so we provide a comment that this was inconsistent with the intent of the code in our plan recommendations, which sparked a recent middle that remove that waiver. And then CPD offered its support of the application to move forward. This is a summary of the public review just after it went into the city process. I'm sure the applicant can speak more about its own outreach efforts, but the city review process, we get notification out at certain key times when we receive the rezoning application. So in April 2014, when it went to Planning Board Notice again was sent out for Liberty and again now for City Council, there are a number of our nos that have stated an interest in this property and they were all notified throughout at this various points of this application. Moving forward, you have attached to the staff report and in a supplemental package that was delivered tonight, no pilot apologized. We just realized today that was left out of the original packet. All the various emails and written comments that CPD has received. There may be additional public comments that you received directly as city council members that should be in your packets or I'm sorry, sit cya. I want to say serious, but that's the Apple phone approach. CYA as well for the single zone at REZONINGS, we had a pretty fairly unanimous or almost unanimous support. Generally, there was a lot of support for the single unit rezoning applications that you have in front of you, primarily because it does provide more of the same of what we already see in Lowry. There were some opposition. Generally this had to do with that discarded parking waiver with a request to seriously consider putting that back into the application. Of course, every rezoning is held up against review criteria that are stated in the Denver zoning code. There's a bit there's a new one that you don't often see when we have a general development plan preceding rezonings, the city council is authorized to take it into consideration. It's not a shell, but you may take the approved GDP into consideration in reviewing the rezoning applications. The other criteria we're all familiar with our shells. You have to do this. You have to look for consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, whether the rezoning furthers the public health, safety and welfare, according to the Denver Zoning Code, whether there are justifying circumstances, and whether the request for the specific zoned district is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district, purpose and intent. Looking at the GDP again, this is an illustrative of how the GDP invasion, the land use mix and intensity of development throughout the entire 70 acre Berkeley annex. Again, we're just looking at that top left hand corner, the northwest corner closest to Monica home first. But you can see how we have the existing neighborhoods to the north and to the south. And here in this case, the single family development is transitioning from Mayfair to a more intense core within the Berkeley annex that's centered along a newly extended Lowry Boulevard that cuts through the site east to west, providing a new connection in the GDP. This area was designated the First Avenue Residential, and it was described in terms of its future land use plan and intensity as a single unit detached area, maximum building heights of two and a half stories lot sizes, a smallish 3000 square feet with relatively shallow setbacks. That's exactly what the proposed usou a with waivers proposes to provide. You could only do single families the most intense residential you can do under a U.S. way. So it will enable that GDP vision to play out with a mix of single with with single unit detached houses. The height is capped at two and a half storeys. The zone lot sizes match up with the GDP starting at a minimum of 3000. And with the waiver, that more shallow setback of ten feet versus 20 feet is allowed next. Looking at consistency with Adopt a plans blueprint Denver which is our guiding combined land use transportation plan designated this particular sub area an area of change and called out for future land use concept as employment again noting importantly that the plan blueprint Denver was adopted prior to the closure of the Air Force uses and therefore really is of limited applicability in terms of a guiding document. But Blueprint Denver does have a lot to say about areas of change. And so we can look to it for guidance as to what's envisioned generally in an area of change. Again, these are areas where we we as a city, Denver, intends to channel growth. It does call out Lowry as a whole as an area of change and speaks specifically for the potential to create new neighborhoods within its boundary. Transitions between existing areas of stability and and areas of change are very important and stressed in blueprint Denver CPD staff feels that the you as you a requested zoning with waivers does encourage housing development with characteristics of Denver's existing urban neighborhoods, but provides and does provide that transition to the existing single unit, Mayfair and Crest more neighborhoods to the north and east. The waivers allow for development pattern similar to what would be allowed for existing established neighborhoods through other special provision described earlier. And then the future land use employment does but does provide some guidance. Even our planned employment areas speak to the potential for residential to be part of that future land use, calling particularly for special attention to design and buffering between any residential near the employment centers. So other rezoning applications you'll see in the next few months will deal with that Lowry Boulevard corridor and other mixed use areas planned, and we'll really carry for that employment recommendation a little bit more clearly. But as a as the proposed USDA with waivers, it does provide a land use and building high transition between those future planned more intense core areas of mixed employment and residential to single family to the north. Uniformity of district regulations is a review criteria that staff through more detail in the staff report believes is met here. It is a unique zoned district because of the waivers and therefore will be uniform with within itself essentially and that it furthers the public health, safety and welfare through implementation of the city's adopted land use plans and the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. Finally, we look at justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context. What happened to justify in circumstances? Well, let's skip to consistency with neighborhood context, own district purpose and intent. Don't let me forget justifying circumstances though. Anyway, the proposed neighborhood context is urban neighborhood. Urban neighborhoods, as described in the Denver Zoning Code and Article five presumes an existing or planned pattern of fairly rectangular blocks broken up by local streets in a fairly grid pattern to make connections easier. It provides a vision of walkability in the form of detached sidewalks with garages and other vehicle access, typically taken from rear alleys rather than from the street, and with plenty of opportunity for other modes of transportation. Then then the vehicle, the zoned district general purpose that the residential zone districts are intended to accommodate variation of residential development by virtue of the different zone district types within the urban neighborhood context to reinforce desired development patterns in existing neighborhoods while accommodating reinvestment and then the zone district specific intent. Specifically, the USA. A Zone District does allow and facilitates development on relatively small blocks for Denver, as small as 3000 square feet. This district allows the most shallow setbacks and highest lot coverage within the urban neighborhood. Context. CPD staff believes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with that stated intent. The base U.S. Zone District provides a land use and building form that recognizes common residential characteristics, such as two and a half storeys and a minimum size of 3000 square feet. The proposed waivers allow for shallow front setbacks, higher lot coverage and no bulk plane, which does accommodate a variation in residential development patterns and reinvestment in this part of Denver. These waivers reflect patterns in other established neighborhoods that were built built either pre zoning code or under former chapter 59 under are two or other. Multifamily zoning with waivers and other site planning flexibility that was built in. Accordingly. Oh, and let me just say justifying circumstances, since for some reason my slide didn't pop up there. CBD stuff is as detailed. More specifically in your staff report finds that there are justifying circumstances, namely in the fact of the changed conditions that have occurred with the departure of the Federal Air Force Office complex from this park. 70 acres. That justifies a reconsideration of the old zoning oh one to a new zone district. You issue a with waivers altogether. Then CPD recommends approval of Council Bill 14 522 that would resume property located at approximately 90 Monica Street Parkway from 012 U.S. way with waivers based on finding all review criteria have been met. Well, look at that, right? The next one. I could. I completed my presentation on Council Bill 1405 to 2. Next, we'll move to the staff presentation on Council Bill 1405 to 3, which is for property located at approximately 7000 to 7300 Archer Park Place. Again, we're honing in on the Buckley Annex Council District five, part of the larger Lowrey statistical neighborhood. In this case, we're talking about a relatively small sliver of a little more than four acres in the southeast corner of the Buckley Annex. Again, just a portion of the entire 70 acres. Um, here we we abut Lowry Southwest, which is part of the Lowry development. Single family homes on larger lots. We also about a portion of an existing older multifamily townhome and taller apartment building complex called Park Heights. And there you have some pictures of those adjacencies. And then across Québec Street, an existing Lowry neighborhood of single family homes facing Quebec. Again, this is a picture from the general development plan showing that area highlighted in yellow. Property owners, again, as the Lowry Redevelopment Authority here. The intent with this rezoning is to redevelop into new single family, and specifically a rezoning from former Chapter 59 Orchard Zoning of oh one to Urban Neighborhood Context Single Unit B with waiver. So you as you be with waivers here, the waivers are somewhat similar to the waivers we discussed with the previous council bill were with the U.S. you'll be starting as the base. We're at a slightly larger minimum zone, lot of 4500 square feet rather than 3000 square feet. The waivers are similar, though, to the Urban House form and to the detached accessory structure form. Again, primarily to allow a bulkier, taller structure, very similar to what already exist and what is built out to the south and east in the existing Lowry, the Lowry neighborhood. So again, we see a bump up in height. We see the departure from a break in height from front to rear and no bulk claim. We see a shallower setback of ten feet. We have a smaller rear setback when there is an alley. And when there is no alley, though, it's still the same. And we we leave the building coverage behind with the waivers on the detached accessory structure. Again, these are typically rear garages or other similar secondary buildings. On the site. We go taller from 1 to 2 stories and 17 feet to 35 feet. No bulk lane and a shallower street setback. Waivers are enabled by section 12 .4. 10.6 of the Denver zoning code. Again, we're looking at a fairly unique circumstance presented here, where we have a planned area of change where we intend to channel growth, but with a clear cap on density of of of no greater than what single unit zoning would allow. So if need needed to customize the zoning with the waivers again reminiscent of other tools we have in our current arsenal zoning codes but wouldn't apply here because it's not technically infill development. So we're getting to a similar end that we allow a property owner that's rebuilding in the middle of an existing neighborhood, the same degree of flexibility through the waivers to this new 70 acre redevelopment that doesn't have existing neighborhoods on the same blocks. Again, City Review has occurred and all other sister agencies have approved with no comments or no substantive comments on the proposed rezoning. And we had a first submittal from the applicant with a proposed parking waiver to require a minimum amount of parking spaces for single unit development. Again, in its first round, CPD recommended the removal of that request for waiver is contrary to the intent of the code and the parking policy of the city as exists and the remainder of the code and other issue districts not to require minimum parking for single unit development. Subsequently, that proposed waiver was dropped and what you see before you does not include that waiver notifications were sent according to code when we received the rezoning application prior to. Planning Board again prior to committee and again prior to this public hearing. Again, we received a lot of public input in the form of written emails and letters which you have before you in your packets, primarily all in support of the proposed use and zoning with waivers. A couple of other opposition comments, again requesting that that minimum parking waiver be added back to the application that went or before you today review criteria again because there is a predecessor GDP. Council is authorized to give consideration to that GDP. And in weighing this rezoning and its appropriateness, also our standard rezoning criteria are in play. You need to find that this application is consistent with adopted plans will result result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare. You'll need to find that there are justifying circumstances for considering a rezoning of this property from its current oh one zone, and that the proposed USA bee with waivers is consistent with the neighborhood urban neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statements. Again, we look to the GDP for advice and guidance. The yellow shaded portion in the bottom right hand corner of this illustrative future development plan that's consistent with the GDP shows this corner to be plan for single unit development. There is no street between the rear of these homes and the adjoining Lowry homes, so these do not have a rear alley, but they do face a public street. That's Arch Archer Place. The GDP specifically called out this area as the Community Park South Residential Sub area and called out for this being single unit detached residential with a height of no more than two and a half stories. Staff finds that in considering the GDP, this proposed rezoning is consistent with the sub area intent language. The USPI with waivers will provide land use of single unit detached housing and a height maximum of two and a half storeys. Huh? What happened to my. Can I have a moment just to unhide some slide?
Speaker 4: So go ahead.
Speaker 5: Sorry I got in at 430 today, so I didn't have a chance to.
Speaker 4: You know, this.
Speaker 5: Quality control tech. And they would love for me to go through this much faster. But because it's a separate application, I have to go through each of these criteria again so that it can stand on its own post action by the City Council. So please bear with me. Okay. I think we're back on course. Okay. So again, we're now looking at criteria for your that you need to hold this proposed rezoning up to. The first one is consistency with adaptive plans. We look first to comprehensive plan 2000, which has a number of strategies and objectives relating to infill development and the potential for new housing in the city that offers quality infill development consistent with the character of any existing nearby surrounding neighborhoods. We look to strategies that talk about extending the street grid into blocks of land that don't have it, which the GDP definitely envisions for this area and providing that interconnectivity. Modifying land use regulations where necessary to ensure the flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and lifestyle choices. That's something that we can do through a rezoning application as well. So the proposed rezoning, Steph feels, is consistent with a comprehensive plan, recommendations and strategies. The rezoning to an urban neighborhood context type of zoned district reinforces the street pattern and goals of current Plan 2000, which has rear alleys as its primary vehicle access. The waivers which allow more gross floor area. Essentially you get a bigger house on the same site, a bigger amount of floor area in a house on the same size zoned as a zone. Lot does allow and accommodate differing lifestyle choices to live in the city of Denver, but perhaps have as much square footage as you might find outside the city. The Lowry reuse plan, which was re adopted in 2000, again is of limited applicability here because it didn't anticipate the change in use from the Federal Air Force Use Blueprint. Denver oops showing the wrong area. But again, remember, we're down in the lower right hand corner. This is an area of change. The land use concept, again, is that future employment, which was based on the announcement of the closure of this portion of Lowry. But we look to blueprint Denver for very good guidance on what's supposed to happen in our areas of change. We look to channel growth there. We have specific goals for Lowry as an area of change where it's this particular redevelopment is seen as an opportunity to create new neighborhoods and offer more choices. Addressing transitions between existing, stable neighborhoods and areas of change as a major theme in Blueprint Denver New development redevelopment should be sensitive to those edges. Staff feels that the UCB with waivers, encourages housing development that are consistent with existing traditional neighborhood development. It provides those transitions to the south and east, in this case, to existing Lowry neighborhoods. The waivers allow for a development pattern similar to what would be allowed for existing neighborhoods, both in Lowry and outside Lowry. Through special provisions described earlier. And then in terms of the future land use recommendation of employment blueprint, Denver, while describing employment as being in primarily job based, does envision a mix of residential uses within that future land use category, calling out the need for special attention to transition between those employment areas and residential. You'll see future rezoning applications for that inner core of Lowry along Lowry Boulevard that will hone in on those more mixed use and employment areas within the Buckley Annex. But the USPI with waivers provides a land use and building height transition from those established neighborhoods to the south and east towards that more planned intensive core of the Buckley Annex. Other criteria uniformity of district regulations. Because the proposed zoning you should be with waivers. It is a unique customized zone to strike, so it will be uniform in terms of the application of the district regulations within the area that it's mapped. Staff recommends finding that this will further the public health, safety and welfare because it does implement the city's adopted land use plans and more specifically, the implements the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. Finally, justifying circumstances. Rezonings may be justified when it's found that the land or its surrounding environment has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment the area or to recognize that change character. So again, we have the closure of the Air Force facilities at Buckley Annex in 2011 and its subsequent sale to Lowry Redevelopment Authority in 2012, and numerous planning recommendations for coverage in redevelopment to meet citywide planning goals for areas of change . That's a significant change in what this land has been. It's no longer office. Federal employees are no longer there, which justifies considering a change in its zoning. Finally, we look at consistency of the proposed USPI with waivers with the YOU part of this own district, the urban neighborhood context. Again, our code describes these urban neighborhoods as characterized by single unit and two unit. Residential uses. A regular pattern of rectilinear rectangular block shapes the tight sidewalks and the presence of alleys. Residential buildings have consistent orientation and setbacks, and there's a balance of modes enabled that can get people into it and through it by bike walking or car. We look to the general purpose statement of the Urban Neighborhood Residential Zones and see that they are intended to recognize common residential characteristics but accommodate some variation, reinforce desire development patterns in existing neighborhoods, while again looking forward to reinvestment and providing standards for two and a half storey urban house forms. Specifically, the U.S. B Zone District intent is to allow detached single family homes until not 4500 square feet or larger. And this district does allow relatively shallow separates and higher lock coverages than some of our other U.S. zone districts that require a larger lots staff that signs and recommends. You find that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the above intent, language and context description. The base U. SUV Zone District provides a land use and building form that recognizes common residential characteristics, such as two and a half storeys and a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. The proposed waivers allow for those shallow but consistent front setbacks, high walk coverage and no bulk plan, which accommodates variation and reinvestment in this part of Denver to accommodate growing and changing needs and demands for housing in Denver. With that, based on this presentation and the staff report in front of you, CPD recommends approval of Council Bill 1405 to 4 seeking a change in zoning of the property noted from 012g ups that should be you as should be with waivers based on finally finding our review criteria have been met. I'm really tired of hearing myself talk. I'm sure they're hanging in there.
Speaker 4: Oh, we're loving it.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. On the edge of our seats. Just.
Speaker 5: Okay. Next before you. Is application Councilor Bell 14 dash 052 for seeking a rezoning of property within the Buckley Annex, located at approximately 7000 to 7300 Archer Place. This is seeking a rezoning from the existing Denver zoning up from Mr.. Say that over again seeking a rezoning from oh one to grh3 with waivers. The grade three stands for General Urban Neighborhood Context, a different neighborhood context than what we've been talking about so far tonight. Our H has road home again, a different building form and intensity than what we've talked about earlier with a maximum height of three stories, but again customized to further implement the GDP and adaptive the plans by the addition of two waivers to get your bearings once more, we're zooming in on the Buckley Annex in Council District five. Now you see the yellow highlighted portion is more of the central area within the 70 acres no longer really abutting existing single family were either surrounded by a proposed single unit development within the Buckley Annex as described in the earlier two applications or by proposed employment mixed use areas or existing multi-unit, high rise and townhome development to the south. Am I missing some key facts? So summarize for you. This is again approximately 15 acres. The owner is the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. It did take ownership through the transfer. So all you need to know, we have the same history of the Berkeley Annex itself through its previous life as an air reserve personnel center with some 3000 employees through the reuse plans adopted by the city updated in 2000 by Denver's Comp Plan Blueprint Denver in 2002. With the change in conditions being the 2005 Department of Defense announcement that it was closing the Buckley Annex and the 2008 completion of a Buckley Annex redevelopment plan by the Redevelopment Authority. This is a plan that was not adopted by the city, but was followed up closely after the property was vacated and transferred by the 2013 General Development Plan, which was approved by the city. Now we're talking about an area, again, fairly internal to the 70 acre Buckley Annex site. This illustrative plan is is consistent with the general development plan that now calls for this area to be a mix of no longer single unit but row home and single family attached housing. The current zoning is one. This allows a variety of civic and public uses like jails and schools, but doesn't allow the type of residential the the plans call for and very limited commercial the grade three with waivers. Again this is a general urban neighbor context different than the urban neighborhood context with the introduction of multi-unit housing and development potential, but specifically a form of of housing that multi-unit dwellings that's a real home form. So more attached units vertically attached to each other rather than stacked row house requires each dwelling unit to have a ground storey street facing entrance. In this case, the waivers are to each of the building forms allowed in the otherwise standard. You are a three and I'll summarize this briefly in a minute. And again, there are building form waivers for the primary building and then again for detached accessory accessory structures. Here we have a summary from the staff report that shows the difference from the base grade three to what is being proposed with the waivers. The theme is familiar. We're seeking a slightly boxier, bulkier form of row homes, no longer a break in height from front to back, as we might see in a general urban neighborhood like Capitol Hill, which is a more infill, contextual requirement, which goes from 30 feet to 40 feet with the waivers across the entire depth of the zone lot, no sidewall height maximum. We get a shallower setback with the waivers at ten feet and a shallower rear setback when there is an alley of five feet. Those are the changes sought in the waivers to the Rowhouse building form. In addition, there are waivers that seek changes to the urban house and duplex building forms. Should a single unit or two unit homes structures be built within this area, similar to what we saw with previous applications? The waivers enable taller bulkier structure, no break in height from front to rear. You get the same 35 feet across the entire zone lot. No sidewall height marks a shallower primary street setback of ten feet allowed a shallower rear setback when there is an alley and no building coverage. The third waivers deal with detached accessory structures such as garage and the rear of a lot. Here again, we see a request through the waivers for a bulkier form and taller form of two stories and 35 feet, essentially no taller than the main house or building on the lot. Waivers are enabled by Section 12, 14 and six of the Denver Zoning Code. Again, CPD has viewed this application as a case study within a larger effort that needs to be undertaken to understand where else in the city we might have designated either currently or future areas of change combined with lower intensity land land use recommendations such as attached single family. Most areas have changed our plan for some type of mixed use development, and so the zoning recommended typically as a mixed use zoned district and that we've had plenty of success with implementing our plans in areas of change through mixed use zoning here was a unique circumstance where we have an area of change that a recommendation for lower intensity of residential, hence the need to modify and build in some flexibility with the waivers. Again, noting that this is allowed through other means in the Denver zoning code. When you're in an infill position within an existing fabric, we allow variations in the front setback to go shallower than what's otherwise required or to bulk up or go taller when it's consistent with other existing buildings around it here, because there's no existing pattern that you're building and slotting into. But the result would be similar. We needed a new tool and new way to get there. Hence the waivers that allow that bulkiness and height in as in a row home zone district. This has gone through a full city review. All our sister agencies listed have approved it with no substantive comments. CPD did have assessment and comment in the first round after the initial submittal of the application did include a park parking waiver that would have increased the required minimum parking for multi-unit dwelling use from 1 to 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. CPD looked at our other general urban zone districts and saw the intent to carry through the rest of the code, which for this type of urban neighborhood did not require a minimum of two. And so asked that this waiver be removed to remain consistent with the parking policies embedded in the rest of the code. The applicant did resubmit and eliminated the parking waiver from the application. Public review was primarily through the form of public notifications. Initially at the very onset when we receive a complete application, notice is sent by email to all RINO's and to all affected city council offices. Property was posted and notice sent before the Planning Board Ludie and again tonight before the City Council public hearing. There are a number of renos at issue here. They were they've all been notified in this case for this application. We received a lot more public input in opposition to the proposed rezoning than in support, you'll see. And in the packets in front of you, we've got about 13 emails and letters in support, just as is in the application you have in front of you tonight. But we had numerous 54 at last count letters, emails of opposition primarily boiling down to that minimum parking requirement. Those in opposition were not. I look through them again tonight. I didn't see any opposition necessarily, you know, taken as a whole to the idea of row homes or multi-family uses. According to plan, it was a parking minimum firing from that standard grade three zone district of one parking space per unit. All those who oppose would prefer that that parking minimum be raised to two parking spaces out of a concern for overflow and impacts, perhaps on surrounding neighborhoods from overflow parking demand both of residents get. US within proposed the planned multi-unit development. You'll see here. Recap in more detail some of the themes that we read about and saw in those letters of opposition. Again, we look to the review criteria and the Denver zoning code to guide this rezoning through council. The first is that the City Council may approve an official rezoning application that's located within an approved general development plan, taking into consideration the objectives and recommendations of the approved GDP. What you have in front of you is a graphic illustration of the general development plan. This portion is highlighted in the Orange is the central residential portion of the GDP. It's identified as the Rowhouse Boulevard sub area. It straddles the proposed extension of Lowry Boulevard and calls specifically not just for multi-unit, but single family attached multi-unit. So it got to the type of building form as well as the level of intensity proposed for this area. Maximum height of three stories, pedestrian entrances facing Lowry Boulevard as a primary street. So fairly specific guidance in the GDP. Staff feels that with this guidance, the G RH three with the waivers was a good fit to implement the GDP recommendations. That Zone District provides a land use for multi-unit form standards for a rowhouse urban form with those pedestrian entrances required for each dwelling unit facing Lowry Boulevard or other primary streets and a height maximum of three stories. Next, we look at consistency with adopted plans, with comprehensive plan 2000, we find strategies and objectives called out here, more detail that seek to promote infill development, that encourage development of housing that meets increasingly diverse needs of of different populations and new residents and older residents like. We see strategies that seek to encourage quality infill development consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, and that looks to extend the prevailing street grid and interconnected parkways and detached sidewalks. And Trayvon's in our urban neighborhoods, where that is the existing pattern and strategies that acknowledge that our land use regulations might need to be modified in some cases to ensure flexibility to accommodate these planned demand are changing demographics and lifestyles. Staff finds the proposed rezoning with the general urban neighborhood context. RH three reinforces the desired street pattern goals of the comp plan 2000 and will enable residential housing types that meet changing needs of Denver's present and future residents. We look to other adopted plan specifically than the Lowry reuse plan. But again, because this plan, even as adopted in 2000, did not foresee the vacancy of the federal government from that site is of limited applicability. We look to blueprint Denver again. I'm sorry, it's showing the wrong hash yellow, but the application in front of you is correct and the area is that central area plan for single unit in Blueprint Denver. It's designated an area of change and a future employment land use. Again, the plan was adopted. Blueprint Denver Plan was adopted prior to the closure the Air Force uses. That element of employment is is somewhat of limited applicability but we still gain some guidance certainly. Blueprint Denver speaks to objectives for areas of change of which this rezoning application falls within. These are areas in Denver where we seek to channel growth there. Lowry has called out specifically in Blueprint Denver as a place where the potential to create new neighborhoods is of utmost opportunity there. Addressing transitions between areas of stability and areas of change is a consistent theme in Blueprint Denver and staff fires that the proposed you are H-3 with waivers. Rezoning is consistent with blueprint goals for areas of change and creates the potential to create a new neighborhood that includes characteristics of Denver's traditional urban general or general urban neighborhoods that we see elsewhere in the city. As to the future land use recommendation of employment in Blueprint Denver, the land use concept does describe a need for special attention to design, screening and buffering when those employment land uses include residential areas or uses. Again, staff finds that the the proposed RH three with waivers rezoning. Does provide that special attention to design and specifically those building form standards by providing a land use and building height transition between those more intense to future planned employment and mixed use areas and more single family both within the Buckley Annex plan planning area and outside the boundaries. And therefore this criteria has met. SAP also finds that the proposed zoning of grades three fulfills the criteria that that Zone District B results in uniformity of district regulations. This is a unique zone district tailored to implement those adopted plans because it will be applied right now, at least only to this Buckley Annex area. Its staff finds that the regulations would be uniform within the district itself. Staff also recommends a finding that this rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of the city's adopted plans. The Area of Change Recommendations and Blueprint. Denver and the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. Next, we look to whether the rezoning fulfills the review criteria that there are justifying circumstances. Rezonings may be justified when the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character area through a rezoning. Well, certainly the closure of the Air Force facilities at Buckley Annex in 2011 and the ultimate sale to Lowry Redevelopment Authority was a substantial change in circumstances in regard to the future redevelopment and reduce potential this property. We have plans adopted that recommend redevelopment of this parcel and therefore we feel the rezoning is justified through this change in circumstances. Finally, we look to consistent whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the general urban neighborhood context, description and the specific purpose and intent statement for the RH three zoned district's general urban neighborhood. Context, as described in the Denver Zoning Code, is characterized by multi-unit. Residential uses, a regular pattern of rectangular block shapes, detached sidewalks, presence of alleys and vehicle access from alleys, consistent building orientation and setbacks from those primary streets, and a pattern that enables a balancing of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle reliance with greater access to other modes of transportation. The zoned district general purpose for the G RH family of zone districts is to promote and protect higher density residential neighborhoods, reinforce desired development patterns in existing neighborhoods while creating standards for new neighborhoods. Provide standards for buildings to orient to the street, take access formally, and have high lock coverage in shallow front yards. And then specifically, the grade three is intended to allow for a mix of building forms and uses accommodated through the urban house, duplex and row house building forms, including uses from single unit to unit to multi-unit to not taller than three stories here staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the above intent language. The base g three zone district provides a land use and building form that promotes the higher density seen typically in general urban neighborhoods and in row home zone districts. The proposed waivers allow for a shallower front setbacks, high lock coverage and higher sidewall height, while which accommodates for a new neighborhood within a designated area of change. Additionally, the requested zoning implements the neighborhood context vision for grid streets, blocks, alleys and sidewalks and therefore implements the Buckley and external development plan is consistent with those objectives as well. Taken All Together is more detailed in the staff report. CPD recommends approval of Council Bill 1405 to 3, which would change the zoning of property located at approximately 7000 Archer Place from oh one. That's wrong to you two g rh three with waivers. Just ignore the rest of those words. I'll finish you on the.
Speaker 2: Last two flip. I notice that grade dropped into 310. Okay. All right. Let me like that. We have six speakers for it, for the three combined, and I'm going to say all six names. You can come up to the front pew. Bob Golic, Marty Forest. Kevin. Yoshida, Greg Kerwin and Brian Word and David Smith. So you all can come up to the front pew and Mr. Golic, you can come on up and begin your remarks.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. I feel like I need to take a deep breath for Tina. My name is Bob Garlic. My address at 609 South Gaylord Street in Denver. I'm here this evening on behalf of Laurie Economic Redevelopment Authority. I will combine all my comments for all three of these proposed bills. Council Bill 522, five, 23 and 524 of the Boulevard one property is relatively small in comparison to the rest of Lowry, but it's a very significant parcel. It's it's the last large parcel that's under Lowry control. As Tina mentioned, all of the Boulevard one property is classified in blue for Denver as an area of change. And there have been significant changes over the past few years to the site. Probably the most significant is that in 2012, the United States Air Force turned this property over to the control of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. Prior to that, it was controlled by the United States Air Force. So upon that transaction, Lowry entered into the general development or GDP process, getting an approval in front of the Denver Planning Board in 2013, which is another very significant change conditioned now that approved general development plan establish sub areas throughout all of boulevard one in the evening. You're looking at three of those sub areas. You're looking at the First Avenue residential, which is single family, and that is the northern parcels that Tina described. You're looking at Community Park South, which is also single family, and that's the southern part that Tina described. And then Rowhouse Boulevard, which is the attached townhouse project or product, and that's in the center of those two, combining those two other sub areas. All of these are in conformance with the approved general development plan. We feel that we have the appropriate zoning that we're proposing this evening. The proposed Usou A and U suburb are both single family districts. They simply have a different minimum lot size. The USDA requires 3000 square feet while the US sub requires 4500 square feet. Otherwise they're almost identical. And the grade three, which is the Rowhouse Boulevard site, it permits identical uses in the general development plan with a maximum height of three stories, which is again what the general development plan recommends. This proposed map amendment, if approved, will bring the zoning in the complete conformance with the general development plan. It will become the catalyst for development in these three sub areas. We're proposing nothing outside the approved land use or guidelines in that general development plan. And as Tina went into detail on, there are a handful of waivers in these three zoning applications. The reason being in 2010, when the zoning code was updated, we lost the ability to use plan building groups or PBDEs. And that necessitates these some of these waivers. We were allowed to have multiple structures on his own lot at that time, no interior setbacks. And so not being able to utilize plan building groups necessitates these waivers. I will be here to answer any questions you may have as the rest of our development team will as well. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Garlic Monte Force.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council, I'm Monte Faust. I'm the executive director for the Lowry Redevelopment Authority and we are the master developer for Lowry. Address is 7290 East First Avenue, and I'll be speaking to all three of these bills as well. 522, five, 23 and 524. I commend Tina on a great presentation on these details, even though she came in at the last minute. And so I'm going to be brief, but I'd like to amplify or emphasize a couple of points that were made earlier. First, we are very happy to be here finally. It's been a long road to get to this point. We've been through an exhaustive, inclusive public process that started in 2007. We have had well over 60 public meetings with robust debate with all the stake holders that we have to gather input to hear their concerns and finally to reach some compromises. The result is what I feel is a very balanced plan that recognizes the surrounding context but still has a broader view to the community needs. Secondly, Boulevard one, you've been hearing Buckley antics all night, but Boulevard one is what we call it now, as part of Lowry, is the last development parcel of Lowry. It consists of 70 acres out of a total of 866 acres of Lowry. It was the site of the former Defense Finance and Accounting Service Center that vacated the site in 2011. The overall boulevard one plan actually calls for 800 residential units consisting of about 450 apartments, 120 single family detached, 230 single family attached. In addition, we have up to 200,000 square feet of commercial in the form of office, retail, restaurants, neighborhood services. And there's also about 13 acres or 19% of the site that is dedicated to open space. What we're seeking tonight is the approval for the zoning for the first phase of this development. About half of this site that will have about 250 residential units on it. There's not any commercial development or apartments in this first phase. Thirdly, as was noted by staff, we're asking for waivers to the zoning as this request is because we have narrowly tailored and crafted the zoning is to match the plan that we had negotiated with our neighbors and in which in turn large part replicates development partners that are already established at Lowry. The tools that, as Bob said, the tools that were previously available to us in the old code such as PGS are no longer available. So we saw that the least impactful approach to accomplish the same end result. Finally, with respect to parking that you've heard about, we have added parking standards into our design review process so that we weren't didn't have to have it in the zoning applications themselves. That concludes my comments and I ask for your support in these rezonings and I'm available answering your questions. You might have. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Kevin Yoshida.
Speaker 4: My name is Kevin Yoshida. My address is 8025 West Colfax. I'm the architecture and planning consultant for the Library Redevelopment Authority and member of the Lowry Design Review Committee and available to answer any questions you have.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Greg Kerwin.
Speaker 0: Good evening. I live in the crust. More district in the crust, more neighborhood in District five, which will be directly harmed by the overdevelopment of Buckley Annex. I speak in opposition to the three current zoning proposals which restore the use of zoning waivers, a tool that the city had decided not to use with the 2010 zoning code . In addition, the third proposal for row houses continues to ignore neighborhood requests for adequate parking. First on waivers, the three zoning proposals set a dangerous precedent for this council. Instead of using existing zoning categories in the 2010 code, CPD and the developer are back to using customized zoning by proposing waivers from standard zoning categories. CPD says this is a test case, but it is going down a slippery slope or asking the council to do so by reintroducing waivers to the Denver zoning process. Neighborhoods around Buckley Annex are concerned about density, traffic and parking in an area that is not a transit oriented development. Buckley Annex is miles from light rail. It has infrequent bus service. It's an area where surrounding intersections on Quebec, Monaco and Alameda are gridlocked. The LRA has been refusing for years to listen to and address neighborhood concerns. Instead, it is moving forward with its plans for a high density, high traffic development with minimal parking. In contrast, I note Councilwoman Robb has set an excellent example of how the zoning process could work with her recently completed legislative rezoning of Cherry Creek North. After a bitter, contentious meeting with this council over Cherry Creek North in 2012, with the help of a mediator, a consensus has been reached in Cherry Creek North. Instead of allowing that kind of process here, instead you have an ad hoc, customized zoning proposal that brings back the tool of waivers. If you allow waivers, you should expect developers to request waivers on many future zoning requests. Second on parking. Editorial writers for both The Denver Post and the Denver Business Journal have commented on Councilwoman Sussman recent article that Denver does not have a mandate from voters to minimize car spick car parking spaces. There's no light rail service to this property, and the existing infrequent bus service will not allow people to live in these new buildings without cars. It is not in the interest of Denver residents to provide inadequate minimum parking at a new development like this. One is only serves to advance the interest of developers because it will cost them less while providing inadequate parking. The excess parking will spill over to and burden adjacent neighborhoods. Please restore the condition that was dropped and call for two parking spaces per residential unit. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Brian Ward.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Brian Wert. I had resided to 50 Eudora Street in Denver, and I want to mention that there were some other speakers here who have had to leave. So I made hopefully you appreciate small numbers. I currently chair Larry's Community Advisory Committee, or CAC, as we know, and and I have been a member of the CSC since its inception in 1994. I mostly want to verify for you the intensity of the public process surround Berkeley Annex and Boulevard One, and I think that's primarily related to the fact that there are many more residents now at Lowry than there were in previous planning efforts on Lowry land. There are far more people who are interested in what's going on at Berkeley Annex, and they participated in the numerous meetings and many mentioned. The result of that participation is that nearly all, if not all, of the changes that the involved neighbors wanted in the reuse plan and in the GDP and now in reflected in the zoning applications before you are incorporated and those in those various documents. So with that, I just want to encourage your approval of these applications. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And our last speaker is David Smith.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Counsel. Thank you, President. I am David Smith. I live at 7135 East Bay. I'd avenue my backyard abuts the Buckley Annex. There's no alleyway there. We will have a house or homes right behind us. I speak in qualified support of the amendments. If this is the best that we can do, then this is what we need. We have a an existing neighborhood in Park Heights that will be affected by this. It is a lot of density going into a low density neighborhood. I've lived all around the city from the west side to the north side, all around here. This is a special neighborhood. So if this is how we're going to do it, I speak in support of this. I'm very proud that we have VHA going in there and the developer listened to us about where DACA would go. I'm proud of what's what's proposed, but there are many concerns about this neighborhood. And if you could, as this moves along, please take a look at it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Smith. That concludes our speakers. So it's now time for questions from members of council. I just remind council members that the question period is for all three council bills five, 22, five, 23 and 524. So we're going to start with Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to start in the details I noticed in some of the letters that were in front of us tonight or emails and in some comments that traffic is an issue. Jay Breeze, in his email or letter to the Planning Board, talked about a traffic study and projected new traffic. And I wondered if anyone here could address whether a traffic study was done, maybe during the GDP and if that was a net increase in traffic over what was generated from the former finance center or.
Speaker 0: What shapers could not be here tonight. The traffic study that the LRA did noted additional trips of approximately 9000 to 10000 trips per day. As to whether that's a net, the LRA justifies it because they say commuters at Buckley Annex were commuting there before to work at the Finance Center. But when the Finance Center was there, the rest of the surrounding homes at Lowry were not.
Speaker 4: So what we're seeing now is immense.
Speaker 0: Traffic, because Lowry's been built up and the finance centers shut down.
Speaker 1: Okay. Mr. Borst, did you want to comment, please?
Speaker 0: We did a traffic study as part of the GDP process. Indeed, it demonstrated I forgot the number of exactly 9500 trips, I think, that were generated by the new development of this site. But prior to this development on this site, it was also occupied by 3000 employees in a 600,000 square foot building that generated approximately the same amount of traffic.
Speaker 1: I know we're facing similar issues at eighth in Colorado, at ninth in Colorado. My other question is about the density point. I think the parking's been covered, but the density point, I understand that these are single family home and row homes, although Cherry Creek was alluded to tonight as a model, which delights me. We are not talking about single family homes when we talk about density in Cherry Creek. So I'm just wondering if you have a density per acre. That's another figure I'm familiar with. A lot of the R two is about 12 units per acre. And I just was curious.
Speaker 0: It's in the neighborhood of 11 units to the acre net.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that's Cherry Creek North, for example.
Speaker 0: The Lowry Town Centers approximately the same density.
Speaker 1: Okay. All righty. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: So I have several questions. So, Mr. first you went through a number of the units that are proposed on the overall 70 acres. And I noticed if somebody could pull up one of the map showing the full site to you, if you wouldn't mind just pulling up one of those maps. So it looks like there's one area that is not being changed, but three of them are correct.
Speaker 0: What we have before you tonight are three zoning for about half of the site. So the area to the along first Avenue from Monaco east to Hodiak or Oneida, Oneida and south all the way to. Can you point with that? You can't see it on there. So the first rezoning covers the northern portion of the site. The second rezoning this U.S., a Yusufiyah, rather, is along the adjacency to Park Heights neighborhood on the South Side. And where it's highlighted there in the middle is the Grange three. What's not in the zoning application are the two dumbbells to this development that is on the Lowry Boulevard at Monaco and Lowry Boulevard at Quebec. Are not part of the zoning for you tonight.
Speaker 6: Okay. So the 800 acres you spoke about, you said there would be 450 apartments. So that would be at the the rowhouse site.
Speaker 0: The 450 apartments would be composed in two areas, one on the south side of Lowry Boulevard, adjacent to Quebec Street, and a future parcel along the southern boundary. That's another 80 units or so between the two of them.
Speaker 6: So 400. So the other which you just spoke about that the pieces that part of one of these three sites. Okay. So those numbers are a little confusing. So I'd like to have you give me an idea of how many proposed units for each of the three applicant applications. That would help me to visualize.
Speaker 0: The applications tonight. The applications tonight are about 250 units because we don't have final planning.
Speaker 6: Can you break them down personally?
Speaker 0: And then so the first area that Usou a I believe is around 80 units. Okay. The U.S. B, U.S. B is in the neighborhood of 20 units and the RH three would be the balance. So 150 units. But we don't have detailed planning on all of these areas. But that's a rough number.
Speaker 6: Got it. Got it. So can you speak to the affordability of the units? I know you made some about VHA, but that's not part of these three applicants, so.
Speaker 0: Sure. Lowry has delivered to the market at this point about 1000 affordable units between for sale and apartments. This apartment or this development will have approximately 80 affordable units as part of the development that we're partnering with.
Speaker 6: Okay. If I may, I have a couple more. Unless you have other people that want to ask, go it. Okay. So is there a proposed developer for the project at this point or you're trying to get through this first and then we can market it?
Speaker 0: Where's the master developer? So we do all of the horizontal development and then we sell to the vertical developers. We have at this point selected our first seven single family detached builders. We're in negotiations with attached builders and with apartment builders.
Speaker 6: So there won't be one builder for a particular site. You're looking at different builders that work.
Speaker 0: For the multiple builders on site.
Speaker 6: And then can you address how the planning board addressed the requests from the neighbors asking for the two units to parking spaces per unit on the Je RH three applet application?
Speaker 5: I'm going to have to look back at the staff report because I.
Speaker 6: Think they're what you do while you're doing that. I have one other question. Okay. So this would be back for you, Mr.. First, if there were two parking spaces per unit on the Rowhouse section, so area, how would that change the proposed number of units that you're recommending for this?
Speaker 0: It wouldn't. We are planning what we are doing and lacking. The neighbors are very concerned about parking, as you've heard. So we initially put parking conditions or waivers into the applications to more mimic the old code for parking requirements, because the new code lowered the standards. When that was rejected as an option, we included parking requirements into our design guideline process so that the road homes will have two parking spaces per unit as well as the single family detached.
Speaker 6: Who manages the design guideline process. Is that done by Lowry?
Speaker 0: It is done by the Redevelopment Authority, as we have for the past. Not in parking, but all of the design review is handled by the Lowry Design Review Committee.
Speaker 6: Is there a reason you would not have it in the in the rezoning application, since you're recommending that the two parking spaces per unit are going to be handled by your design review process? Is there a reason why it would not just be part of the reason application.
Speaker 0: We included in it originally, but at the request of staff? We removed it from the application.
Speaker 6: And I saw in here somebody thought that staff wouldn't support it if it was left in there. And I don't know what that's about.
Speaker 5: That's true. And to respond to your previous question about what planning board did, they did hear testimony similar to what you heard, and they had all the same written testimony that you have in front of you. They declined to add any conditions to their recommendation of approval, which was unanimous. They declined to add any condition, suggesting additional parking be required for the grade three application.
Speaker 6: And that was with the understanding that LRT was going to include that in the design review.
Speaker 5: Yes. They heard the same testimony. Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. I think those are all the questions I have for right now. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Tina, I do have some other questions. I just want to make something pretty clear. In an area of change, you usually look for density, don't you?
Speaker 7: That's been the case to date until now.
Speaker 5: Most of our area of change that you can all visualize, that blueprint, every map that you have on the wall of all your offices. They're typically along fairly heavily infrastructure, transportation corridors around station areas. In our larger master planned areas like Gateway and Stapleton.
Speaker 1: That's all right. That's all I need. I wait. I'm not finished. So what you have here is a developer and neighborhood who did not want density. And so you had to make waivers in order to make this less dense. Then blueprint Denver would have suggested right.
Speaker 5: As most other recommended areas of change have gone, and even the rest of Lowry was zoned into a multifamily zone district that allowed a lot, much more intensity than what was ultimately built. And that zoning still exist east of Quebec.
Speaker 1: So so actually the waivers were done at the behest of a community that wanted it to be less dense. And we're talking here about 230 single family detached homes. And what about 100 of the rooftops?
Speaker 0: It's about 100 and I'm sorry, about 120 detached and about 230 attached.
Speaker 1: Attached. All right. So these are all single family homes.
Speaker 5: Yes. I mean, we could have pulled back and rezone the whole thing mixed use. Right. And then let the master.
Speaker 1: Go first, which is what we did. And this was in response to the one.
Speaker 5: Very specific land use recommendations and height recommendations that were in the plans to reduce the density. And then when you break it out into multiple rezonings, it's your only way to guarantee that you'll get that through the entitlements.
Speaker 1: Now, you had mentioned before, and I don't know if my fellow fellow council people probably already know this, but just we don't have parking requirements for single family homes, do we? No, no. We're not in the old code and not in the new code. Correct. Every city said every single city scene, so that three times west cities single family detached home has no parking requirements to my.
Speaker 5: Now in terms of Standard Basin districts, I can say that's true. There might be some customized ones that required it.
Speaker 1: And if we began to require them all to have two parking places, that would mean everybody would have to build a garage or something, right?
Speaker 5: That's true. There'd be no choice because they would be required off site. I mean, you wouldn't have to necessarily build a garage, but you'd have to build pads or driveways to accommodate them.
Speaker 1: And so because of that, because the neighbors asked the the Laurie Authority did request two parking spaces for. For the row homes they do already have the zone code has one parking space for the row homes and they did request it for CPD. Turn them down. Right.
Speaker 5: We recommended or we suggested that they would lose the support because it was such a deviation from other similar zone districts and the policy embedded in this similar zone district to bump up the parking requirement.
Speaker 1: Now the zoning code that had one parking place for row homes was done with a large public process, wasn't it?
Speaker 5: Yes, it was. We just we distinguished or differentiated the parking requirements based on the type of neighborhood. And so we have higher parking requirements in suburban multi-unit versus urban or in this case, even more dense general.
Speaker 1: Urban types of general area, neighborhood. And yet the single family homes don't have any parking requirements. The townhomes have one. Their design guidelines call for two in both of those instances. Right.
Speaker 5: And it's a minimum.
Speaker 1: And it's a minimum.
Speaker 5: The minimum. And as it's worked through the market and demands, it gets built to varying levels beyond the minimum or.
Speaker 1: At the minimum. And generally developers will provide two parking spaces.
Speaker 5: Well, as we see in the rest of Lowry, for example. They certainly they certainly do even in the some of the townhome developments.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Sassaman, councilman noted.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. This question is for Tina. And by the way, whoever it was who got sick of you. Big time.
Speaker 1: Big time.
Speaker 5: I'm actually on vacation today.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'd hate to be them, but right now I'd hate to be you. So I don't I don't think I agree with Mr. Kerwin about the the the parking and traffic issues. As they say, our citizens hate nothing more than urban sprawl and density. But I do have to agree with him on this. The the use of the waiver. I'm just help me get over what seems sort of Orwellian to me. So we usually when Orwellian. Yeah. I mean when when you when you wave something, you're usually waving a right. It's like I have a right to ABCD, F and G and I'm waiving my right to F and G. In this case, we're sort of waving our hands and creating more height.
Speaker 5: It's just way too many partners.
Speaker 1: So that's part of the evening.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're we're waving an increase.
Speaker 5: It's an odd name for what the tool has traditionally been used for in the city of Denver.
Speaker 6: For better or.
Speaker 5: For worse, it can go either way. You can wave its take a height standard through the legislative process. Even for a quasi judicial rezoning you through a waiver, you can take an existing standard of 30 feet and wave that right to build 30. But instead you have to. Okay, so you waive it. It goes away. That's. That's true. You wave bye bye. It goes away. What you put back in its place can either be an increase or decrease.
Speaker 4: Okay. We do administrative adjustments to adjust to existing.
Speaker 5: But so if you had your house in Wash Park or you know, if you tore it down and on the same side of the street, everybody or the majority had built to 35 feet in the rear third that now we have a process through the administrative adjustment review to allow that new infill house to match the bulk and height that's otherwise there.
Speaker 4: Right now that makes perfect sense to me. That's the yeah we don't.
Speaker 5: But the problem is that that process is tied very specifically to compatibility criteria. You have to be compatible to something that exist here. We don't have anything that exists to compare it to.
Speaker 4: Fair enough. But we do have a complete zoning code.
Speaker 5: We have a very complete zoning code. But, you know, as you all know, our ability to foresee the future through zoning is not perfect. And therefore, we have the capability, smart people that the city council was in 2010 to adopt.
Speaker 7: A code.
Speaker 5: That offers tools to vary or flex otherwise standard zoned districts. Sometimes it's a party which in practice now we require applicants to tie to a standard zone district and just vary from it. So they're not making things up totally out of whack with the rest of the zoning. Lessons learned. We have overlay zones which sometimes can be used to add an additional layer of standards that aren't otherwise in the standard zone district. We still have waivers and conditions. It's in the code. We did not get rid of it in 2010, though personally, I would have loved to wave bye bye to waivers. But it's another tool and it's there, and we're trying to be very, very judicious in the way we use it. This would be the first case of a rezoning going through with waiver. Since 2010, we've been able to accommodate other needs for flexibility through other pdes or overlays, and you'll see more of that coming through. In this case, there is a lot of advantage to maintaining that base zone district on the map as a usou a or UCB. BE It is very transparent right on the map what it is, we're just allowing a bulk here for its only form standards that we're very we're not burying other parking were the general design standards that you typically would also see in PDS that come before PDS tend to cut across the whole code and do things or add things or take away things, right? This was just one very kind of a whole need to change the bulk and height of these buildings. And so a waiver felt like the most precise way to get to a turn of the dial rather than a pad and an overlay. There are other reasons with overlay, including a minimum area requirement and the fact that you can't use an overlay to give more than what the underlying zone allows. So we couldn't get to that greater height or bulk through an overlay zone. So that left the kind of looking hard APD or waiver and PD felt like a real overkill for this type of variation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess I would have. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I don't know if.
Speaker 5: We'll ever do it again, but.
Speaker 4: Well, that's I mean, I find that comment reassuring, honestly. It's, you know, we went to a lot of trouble to.
Speaker 5: We did.
Speaker 4: Do. We did. Zoning code you referred to you know in of the previous council that adopted that.
Speaker 6: We.
Speaker 5: Tried very hard to push it into other that peg into other holes but it's still a tool that you know is might be useful. But generally we were able to accommodate it through other means. Okay.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you. You've given me somewhat more comfort.
Speaker 5: Are you feeling less Orwellian?
Speaker 4: I still like that. It's called a waiver.
Speaker 5: I'd rather be called banana or something.
Speaker 2: Tara thank you. Councilman there, Councilwoman Lemon.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Tina, how more can you pass? Will people be able to park on the street in this area?
Speaker 5: Yes. These are public streets being, as you see in the illustrative correct mistake. So we're creating new punching through the local street grid into this. And, of course, LOWRY And on street parking will be available on all public streets as per other general design standards for Denver streets.
Speaker 7: And not counted in the number of parking places somebody could take their apartment, say, oh, there's there's mice.
Speaker 5: You don't you don't get to count on street parking, torture, minimum required off street parking. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you thank you. Councilwoman moment. Councilwoman Susman.
Speaker 1: To Councilman Leavitt's question, I don't think we actually heard why we wanted to change the Bolt plane or why we wanted to have taller buildings. And I think we understand why in order to get those, we had to do a waiver because there was no comparison nearby houses to say, oh, well, we want it to look like that house and therefore couldn't do an adjustment. Then I don't know that we got an answer form of why would in the first place did we want to go higher and have a bulk plane? Did you get feel like you had that answer?
Speaker 4: I mean, I think I know why is because the developer wants more square footage too.
Speaker 1: So no, it's for net zero. It's for. Oh well let's have an answer to that. Yeah, that's, it's for. Ecological reasons. Do you want to monitor or do you want to address them?
Speaker 0: Sure. First, with respect to the bullet point, for instance, we have neighborhoods just across Quebec from this neighborhood that have two storey elements of garages and a garage with living space above them, adjacent to the alley under all the rest of their lives. And we were trying to replicate that pattern. And by using and we didn't have a PBGC available to us. So, for instance, that was zoned to a with waivers and conditions and had an overlay of a PBJ to it to allow us to have the development pattern that we had. Under the new code, we couldn't do that because we didn't have PBGC available to us, which is why we're asking for those waivers. With respect to sustainability on this site. We're trying to reach really high standards with respect to water usage, energy usage. And this more compact development pattern certainly lends itself to that.
Speaker 1: The main reason.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Mr. Force, if you could stay up there, I do have one more question for you. Out of the 250 units that are proposed for these three applications, are they all proposed to be for sale units or will they be a mix of rental and for sale?
Speaker 0: In these three applications, these would all be for sale.
Speaker 6: Okay. And the DA. Are those proposed to be rental?
Speaker 0: Those would be rental.
Speaker 6: Okay. I do have a question for Mr. Yoshida, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. So I know you have a lot of experience as an architect in working with different developers who build projects. And the zoning always says one thing in terms of the requirements. But the reality of what a developer ends up building doesn't always exactly match what the zoning code says. And again, as Tina said, it's a minimum. So can you just speak to what your experience is when there is, you know, a requirement that sets something lower than what the demand may be?
Speaker 4: In regards to speaking specifically.
Speaker 6: To the Rowhouse project, where residents have raised question and concern about, they believe that two two parking spaces per unit should be more apropos. And again, I understand that in the design review process that can be spoken to, but, you know, that's a process down the road and.
Speaker 4: I'm happy to describe that. You can tell me if it's responsive for the real homes in particular. It is relevant to the time and place and market forces that. Lowry We understand and heard the neighborhood concerns about one or not having two spaces per unit. The nature of as a developer, this discussion is relevant to multi-family as well as density increases. A developer winds up not only thinking about what the maximum or minimums are allowed to by zoning, but his target market. So in this case, as as resolution is brought on the plan, as Mr. Force indicated, two spaces per unit seems to match with the developer's expectations for what they want to be perceived as successful product for this site. So at this point, staff, lay staff and the design review board are continuing to communicate that to space minimum to potential developers, and that's being accepted as parallel to their market interest right now.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, are there any questions on 522, three or four and seeing and the public hearing is now closed. This is an opportunity for councilmembers to comment on either five, 22, five, 23 or five, 24. And we will start with Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Tina, for your marathon presentation of the of the Bills. And thank you to everybody who spoke this evening. This has been a very long process and very lots of public input. And you can see the results of the public input. It is less dense than it started. It does have design guidelines that are responsive to what the public has asked for, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to speak for to why this is an appropriate rezoning for the site and to the waivers and conditions issue. Yes, we kept it in as a tool on the zoning code task force. I feel like I'm the last living member of that. But at any rate, we kept that in the toolbox with the intention that it would not be used very often, but that it was a viable tool. And Councilman Nevett, I agree with you. It's weird to waive things in instead of waive them out. We had that problem under the old code. But the interesting part I think, of why we kept in waivers and conditions was because the citizen representatives on the task force really wanted it us to from Steve Kaplan to the architects, they said, yes, we shouldn't use them so much, but we're not going to get rid of them entirely. If there is anybody in the room like maybe Bob Golic who sat through some of those meetings, even when we interviewed the potential consultants, we said, do you see these in other cities? Are they still necessary tools? And there was some advocacy to have that. The way I look at it, there's only one other way this could possibly have been zoned it. I'm not going to apply to work at the Planning Department after my stint here, but another thing we could do that I'm glad that we did in Cherry Creek and the neighbors are. Necessarily recommending is go to a higher zone district is someone implied and not a mixed use district of some sort and then put either the overlay on that tone it down or the regulating leading plan. And the regulating plan is something that is done after the zoning. And I probably would have given neighbors ulcers as we experienced in Cherry Creek about that. Ultimately, I think that project is going to work out okay. There have been some changes and it still fits in the regulating plan, but you're just picking a tool to meet all the needs. And it's certainly clear to me that Lori is a strange dog. No offense to anybody who lives in Lowrey, but throughout I mean, I still didn't find out tonight what one stood for. So throughout the zoning of it, there have been tools used there that have been unique because filling in what was 866 acres when we started is a unique situation in a city that's landlocked. So I'll be supporting this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Rob. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to talk to the oh one. My understanding and I don't know if maybe Brian can remember this back in 1994 when we started, oh one means no zoning because the it was a military base. It didn't have any any need to respond to any zoning codes. And that's how we always understood it. Oh, one man not zoned. Maybe we should just put waivers and conditions on that. Yes, right now don't zone and don't do this either. They just won't want filler.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Sussman, any other comments from members of councilors on 522, three or four? Okay. Scene none right now, 522 is on the floor. So we are first voting on that one. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Sussman. All right, Brett Brown, I thought Kenny Lehman. Lopez Monteiro Levitt, right. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd. Sheppard. Hi, Mr. President, I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please. Thursday announced the results.
Speaker 1: 12 ICE.
Speaker 2: Provides 522 has been placed on file consideration does pass. Councilwoman Lehman, will you please put Council Bill 523 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I move the Council Bill 523 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, rollcall.
Speaker 1: Assessment by Brooks Brown by Fats Kenny Lehman II. Monteiro. Nevitt I. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote. And now the results.
Speaker 1: For Vice.
Speaker 2: Provost. 523 have been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Councilwoman Lehman, would you please put Council Bill 524 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And I move the council bill 524 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. And second it. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 1: Susman Brooks. Hi, Brown. Hi, Fats. Can each layman. Lopez, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 by 524 is in place upon final consideration and does pass. There will be a required public hearing on Monday, September 14th, 2014, on Council Bill 610, which limits and controls growing marijuana for personal use in your private homes due to the Labor Day Holiday Council will not
|
Bill
|
Changes the zoning from O-1 (Former Code) to U-SU-A with waivers (Urban Context, Single Unit, lot size 3,000 sf min.) of property at 6801 East First Avenue (Buckley Annex) in Council District 5. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Changes the zoning from O-1 (Former Code) to U-SU-A with waivers (Urban Context, Single Unit, lot size 3,000 sf min.) of property at 6801 East First Avenue in Council District 5. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-24-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08112014_14-0648
|
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Robb. All right. Moving on to presentations, Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations?
Speaker 1: Mr. President, Communications Manager.
Speaker 5: Secretary, do we have any communications?
Speaker 1: None.
Speaker 5: President We have two proclamations this evening, and we're going to start first with Proclamation 648. Councilman Lopez, will you please recount a proclamation? 648.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. With pleasure. Proclamation 648 Series 2014 Recognizing Saturday, August 16th, 2014 as Chefs Appreciation Appreciation Day. Whereas the National Pink Tire Organization and PTO, a51 C3 nonprofit and their Chefs Against Cancer Division, were created to band men together in the fight against all types of cancer. And men nationwide wear pink or fuchsia ties to raise awareness, educate and empower the community about cancer. And. Whereas, the end PTO chefs and the NPT OHS Chefs Against Cancer Cancer Division includes more than 400,000 chefs and is growing in numbers worldwide. The chefs volunteer their time to stand beside fellow chefs and their family members to provide support and encouragement. And. Whereas, every third Saturday in August, chefs, physicians, nutritionists and fitness trainers will gather to promote healthy living and cooking, uplift one another, and give back to those who have already helped so many others experience how wonderful, happy, healthy life can taste. Whereas on August 16th, 2014, the Master Chefs Care Program will launch and chefs will share a new recipe, new recipes and cutting edge culinary techniques to help others share, and kitchen commander camaraderie to help promote healthy living and cooking. And. Whereas, and chefs are committed to their colleagues and others to the mission of supporting individuals undergoing treatment for cancer now therefore being proclaimed by the Council, the city and County of Denver. Section one at the City Council supports the National Pink Tiger Organization and supports its efforts in the Fight Against Cancer, Section two that the Denver City Council proclaims. Saturday, August 16, 2014. As Chefs Appreciation Day and encourages all men to wear pink or fuchsia ties on that day to support show support for all people in their fight against cancer. Section three at the clinic, the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seed seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Donald Crush, founder of the National Pink Tie Organization.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I move that council proclamation 648 series of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 5: It has been moved in. Second comments from members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And unfortunately, because there are a lot of chefs that are probably cooking right now, we couldn't get any with us today. But they express not only their gratitude for acknowledging their efforts, but their regrets and not being able to come. All this talk about chefs has got me hungry, and as you can tell, I probably know more fitness. I probably know more chefs than fitness trainers. But this this proclamation really hits home for me because there's so many people who are being treated for cancer. Now, I could say that happily in October, God willing, it'll be five years since my first treatment for for cancer. And I'm cancer free so fast all the way to October. So I got to wait till October to be able to say that all the way. But I know there's a lot of people, especially especially us men, that don't like to talk about cancer, especially certain types of cancer. And we sometimes become a little bit too macho to to check or to acknowledge it or to look out for each other. It's not to say that cancer isn't as in an issue for women, as opposed to this is something that affects everybody. I think the the statistic was one in four people. Right. One point in their life. I think that's that's what they had told me. But this organization is doing a great job. And so I just wanted to acknowledge the folks with this organization, National Pink, entire organization, and to make sure that as men are wearing a pink or fuchsia tie on Saturday, August 16th, which is a very important day as well too, from for me. And I'll be wearing this pink tie again, because that was the day that my grandfather, who was diagnosed with liver cancer, had left this world on August 16. So it is a very, very important proclamation, a very important day for me. And I just wanted to share that being that we won't have anybody to receive the proclamation. I just want to make sure, Mr. President, that this was read in the. Council chambers and that we are supportive and encourage folks to support this proclamation and we will transmit this to the national entire organization as soon as possible.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments from members of council? Scene nine Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Lopez Hi, Montero. Nevitt Hi. Ortega I'm Rob Shepherd Brown. Brooks.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: Fights.
Speaker 1: I can eat. Lemon. Hi, Monteiro.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 5: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. 11 eyes 11 I proclamation 648 has been adopted. And you said, Councilman Lopez, you did not have anyone to accept the podium today.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing Saturday, August 16, 2014 as Chef’s Appreciation Day.
A proclamation recognizing Saturday, August 16, 2014 as Chef’s Appreciation Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08112014_14-0649
|
Speaker 5: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and now the results. 11 eyes 11 I proclamation 648 has been adopted. And you said, Councilman Lopez, you did not have anyone to accept the podium today.
Speaker 3: As president.
Speaker 5: All right. We will move on to our second proclamation, proclamation 649. Councilwoman Monteiro, will you please read? Oh six 2649 Correct. Corrected.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 649 is being read tonight in recognition of Detective Richard Snyder. Deputy Badge 85024. Upon the occasion of his retirement. And it reads as follows. Whereas Richard Snyder was hired by the Denver Police Department as a patrol officer on August 1st, 1985. And. Whereas, Ric was promoted to the rank of detective on October 16th, 1992 and earned his tenure Gold Detective Badge on October 9th, 2002, while serving in a variety of assignments to include the Vice and Drug Control Bureau and the Crimes Against Persons Bureau as a domestic as a domestic violence and homicide detective. And. WHEREAS, Detective Snyder began to specialize in the management of sex offenders in 2001 while assigned to the Sex Crimes Unit, and in 2005 was one of the founding members of the Sex Offender Registration and Compliance Unit, an assignment he served until his retirement. And. WHEREAS, Detective Snyder's expertize in the field of sex offender management is widely recognized by the Denver the Denver Police Department and his partner agencies. And. WHEREAS, Detective Snyder's contributions to the management of sex offenders include holding the first community notification meeting regarding the release of a sexually violent predator on February 26, 2014. His appointment to the sex manage his his appointment to the Sex Offender Management Board Community Notification Technical Assistance Team in August 2005, the procurement of a grant from the Adam Walsh Foundation in 2007 that allowed for tracking and monitoring of transient sex offenders and his appointment to the Governor's Task Force on Sex Offender Registration, which resulted in legislation establishing self verification of offenders who lack a fixed address. And. Whereas, on August 15th, 2014, Detective Snyder will retire as a Denver police officer, fulfilling 29 years of dedicated service to the city and county of Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes Rick Schneider's contributions to keep Denver's communities safe, and for his personal and professional dedication to his work and to Denver's residents over the years. And the city and county wishes him well in his retirement. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest, and to fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Detective Richard Snyder and his family.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. 623 be adopted.
Speaker 5: It's been moved and seconded. Comments from members of the Council. Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so glad to be able to sponsor, along with our other co-sponsors, this proclamation recognizing Detective Rick Snyder and I welcome you and your family here tonight to our chambers. You've done so much work quietly in the background for our community to keep us safe. And you and I have worked so much in the neighborhoods that I represent in Council District nine, and I believe you are a constituent of Council District Line. I just wanted to put that in there, but I just want to, with all my heart, let you know that your commitment to the difficult criminal and social issues that we've dealt with in District nine have never been ignored or unappreciated. And working with you, I've just learned what a challenging job you had and some of the work that you've done, especially the work that you're doing up until now. But the other thing is, I've always wondered how. Individuals are able to sort of balance out when they have very difficult and stressful lives. And for Detective Snyder, it was his partnership with Dr. Jack Moss from Pacific Dental Services. And what they've been able to do in the last year is to provide free dental services and have a mobile outreach team that's come in to my district and I understand other districts in the city as well. We've been able to elegantly work on this on this project together, and by that I mean we're all the tables , they're the chairs. There are the tents there with the too hot, with their water, with their Band-Aids, you know, all of those little things that can impact a person's strength already around, wanting to go see a dentist and being able to help it be as stress free as possible. To date, with the two dental clinics, there was one on Saturday, August 9th, but to date, 180 people in areas once a year have received dental care. And I very much appreciate that many were children that are going to be ready to go to school. And good dental caries and hygiene is so important because of all of the other indirect things that dental care, poor dental care can have, but poor dental hygiene. So that was your secret to the always being happy and always being upbeat. It was always giving back to the community. So with that, I they take a lot of value and understanding. That's how you balance this with something positive. So I would like to I would like to extend you the best the best retirement that that you deserve. I was kidding. And I told him the other day and just now that I was going to rescind his retirement, and he said, nope, nope, nope. So I would ask that my colleagues please join me in supporting and supporting my constituent and my friend, Detective Snyder, this proclamation.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for recognizing Detective Snyder. You know, I've been thinking a lot about some of the unsung heroes in our city. And this is so great that this detective gets a chance to, after all the years of service in this city, gets a chance to be honored in this way. I feel it's it's really amazing. I want to point out, I was six years old when you became a detective in the city. And and I was I was in Los Angeles. And I just think it's beautiful that you are making this city the best city in America while I was growing up. And I just want to thank you for your investment into this city. And, yeah, it's just it's it's a beautiful tribute. And I can see that you're moved and it's just it's just really sweet. And I just think the family as well for allowing all these years of service and the things that you had to endure. I appreciate it. And I hope today is just a little bit of of joy that can bring to the satisfaction of this life. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm honored to be a co-sponsor of this proclamation. Councilwoman Montero, thank you for bringing bringing it forward. I've known Detective Schneider for I can't even remember how many years. A very long time. I had the pleasure, pleasure and opportunity working with him over the years. And clearly, he is an example of the many police officers, men and women that are part of our police force, who are so dedicated and committed to this city. And I just want to thank you for your 29 years of service. I want to thank your family for having lent him to all of us and shared him with us for the last 29 years. I wish you the best of luck in your retirement and Godspeed.
Speaker 5: Ortega Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I'm not going to say how old I was when you began in this city, but I will say that I looked at that and I said, 1985. That's not that long ago. He hasn't been here that long. And then I started doing my math. I actually got to know Detective Snyder, working on an intense case in my district concerning a sex offender. And I tell you, his depth of knowledge, his understanding of the state legislation, of the regional nature of this of the committee meetings, this JCC. I could. Keep all of that straight. And then his ability and willingness to come out and talk to the neighborhood and to talk to the offender on quite a regular basis and to keep following up with me. As my colleagues have said in the previous comments, it really was exemplary city service and what you would expect out of the best in detectives. So I am sorry to see you go, but I hope you enjoy your retirement.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. We have many other comments from members of council. I would just like to add this as well. We wish you the very best. And you know our public servants. I'll use a football analogy since we're getting ready, a football season, you know, typically Denver police and other entities, they're very similar to offensive linemen and not because of your size. That's not what I'm talking about. But when you when you we only hear about offensive linemen when there's a holding penalty or there's a false start. But when Peyton Manning drives 70 yards down the field for a touchdown, credit goes to the quarterback, the running back, and we never hear about those in the trenches doing the hard work each and every play. And I'm very thankful that Councilwoman Monteiro brought this forward that we know from the great work that you did. She spoke about the dental clinic that helped in the her district. It also came to Marbella as well, where we had, I believe it was over 40 people got dental services. And I want to thank you for being a part of that, making that a reality as well, because that that was, well, a great the community the community really appreciated that. So thank you and best of luck. So seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Monteiro I never I Ortega Rob Shepherd, Brooks Brown, I but.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Can eat. Lehman Hi.
Speaker 3: Lopez Hi.
Speaker 1: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman. Moran. Oh.
Speaker 7: There you go.
Speaker 5: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and mouth the results.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes Proclamation. 649 has been adopted. Councilwoman Monteiro, is there anyone you want to call to the podium?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call up Commander Sonnier here. I could barely see you. There you are. And also and also our honoree this evening, Detective Rick Schneider. What would you like to go first?
Speaker 5: I think you kind of covered it.
Speaker 3: I've known Rick. Come on up. You're not going to get too hard. That is, you're never shot anyway. So, so, so congratulations. I just echo what you said. Rick has done a phenomenal job for us. His knowledge of the sex offender population out there, the sex offender management board. I first got to know Rick when I was a lieutenant in Patton Crimes and had sex offender management back when we only had about 1200 in the year or 1200 in the city. We're up over 2000. What's the last number? 2194. Yeah, so we're almost 2200. So within that short amount of time, we've gone. But he is the legislative expert. He has done a lot of testifying at the state capitol, getting ordinances passed to help us manage our board. And the whole unit really has done a phenomenal job. And, you know, kudos goes out to the whole unit. But congratulations, Rick. I appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. President. Council members. Thank you. When Councilwoman Montero called the other day and said, we're going to do this, I was a little taken aback and obviously still Im almost at a loss for words that night, but I said almost. Those of you who know me know that's not going to happen, but that I really do appreciate everything that everybody said tonight. The kudos, accolades, prizes, gifts. I know now, right now how Kim Kardashian feels every day.
Speaker 7: That.
Speaker 3: I didn't do anything any different than the other 1300 men and women across the street who work hard every day. But it's truly been an honor to do this for the last 30 years, and I appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Would you like to introduce your family to really be in trouble? You'll be one with that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You saved my life right here. And my son in law, Nick or Cory, my daughter Lindsey, my wife Carol, Dr. Jack Moss, that we spoke about the dental thing and his wife Theresa. And you guys know Lieutenant Davis and I really am taken aback by this. And I truly appreciate it's been an honor to work with you all. Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in recognition of Detective Richard Schneider, DPD Badge 85024, upon the occasion of his retirement.
A proclamation in recognition of Detective Rick Schneider on the occasion of his retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08112014_14-0613
|
Speaker 5: Six, 13 and 614. Are there any other bills call out. Do you get those through, Madam Secretary? Yes. All right. We will tee up the first one, which is Council Bill 613. Councilwoman Sheppard, what would you like to do with this question?
Speaker 1: I don't know if anyone can answer this, but so I, I and forgive me if I don't understand the differences between a a local maintenance district and a business improvement district. But I thought that the Business Improvement District was more about promoting the business side of things and maybe some programmatic activities around that. And that local maintenance districts actually took care of maintenance of any Lake Street facilities, for example, that a district might create. So is this to say that the Business Improvement District will now assume those responsibilities or that things are no longer going to be maintained? I'm just not clear what that means.
Speaker 0: You know.
Speaker 3: Let's help them out. Good evening. My name's Andrew Johnson with the Department of Finance and Special Districts. Those are great questions that in essence, it's the concept really is, is that the local maintenance districts were put into place several years ago and they are to do just the maintenance of the street improvements. However, the community has come together in another way to want to make something better of the area. And so the businesses are getting together to create a business improvement district that is a little bit larger than both that. But there's two local maintenance districts there currently Santa Fe, A and B, and those responsibilities or those maintenance districts will be assumed by the Petitioning Business Improvement District to be created.
Speaker 1: So the bid will take over the maintenance.
Speaker 3: That is that.
Speaker 1: I guess I just didn't quite understand that they could also do that because it's typically there's a a business improvement district and there's often maintenance districts underneath that.
Speaker 3: There can be. And in this case, we are letting the. The business improvement district does one to assume the responsibility for the maintenance district.
Speaker 1: Thanks for that clarification.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Captain. Was that the same question for both of you? Okay, wonderful. Any other builds called out by members of council? Well, then, seeing that we're moving on to the block bills, all of the bills for introduction are ordered published.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance creating and establishing the Santa Fe Business Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approving the Initial Operating Plan and 2015 budget therefor. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) Creates and establishes the Santa Fe Business Improvement District, appoints the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approves the initial Operating Plan and preliminary 2015 budget. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-5-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08112014_14-0574
|
Speaker 5: If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name, and then note that you are available for questions of council. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding of time on the presentation monitor on the wall. When the other light comes on, you will have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. And when the red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments. Audience members Please understand that council members do use electronic devices of various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us. Be assured, however, that by mutual agreement in common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting , emailing or other communications during the public hearings. Councilman, that it will you please put council bill 574 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Certainly, Mr. President, I move that council bill 574 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 5: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Councilor Bill 574 is open. May we have the staff report? Council Member.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Council Bill 574 is a ballot language and also ordinance language that changes some of the configuration of the program. The ballot language is an expansion and reauthorization of the Denver Preschool Program. The increase dedicated sales tax. The proposed increase dedicated sales tax will go from point one 12% to 0.15% for three reasons one to to reinstate and sustain summer programing for the Denver preschool program to keep up with rising preschool and tuition costs for the program. And three, to respond to the growing demand of full and extended day programing in the city of Denver. There are also be three proposed ordinance changes for the program. One is going to be a collapse of the board of Directors and the Board of Advisors to a single mayor appointed governing board with one seat selected for City Council as it is now. We will also have an increase of administrative cap from 5% to 7%, which is in line with most Colorado nonprofit association and also allow for the program to serve younger children as revenues allow. Some of the highlights of the Denver preschool program since originally passed in 2006 are as follows DPP has delivered over 55 million intuition credits to Denver families, over 9 million just this year alone. Nearly 32,000 children have participated in the Denver Preschool Program. Actually, the correct number here is the accurate numbers 31,816, which you've heard me say over and over again. DBP has invested over $8 million in quality improvement. 1.3 million just this year. And I like to share some of the results from the kindergarten readiness, which is one of the biggest reasons to reauthorize this program. 89% of Denver preschool kids are receptive and vocabulary tests and receptive vocabulary. 98% are testing in literacy. And 99% in math. These and several other reasons which you'll hear from the individuals who will come and testify are reasons that we need to reauthorize and expand this program. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Council members, we have nine individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five speakers if you can. Please make your way to the bench here at the front. That will help speed up the proceedings. And our first five speakers are that Tex Gloria Higgins, Joe Maria Garcia, Amber Monk and Cheryl Caldwell. So if you five could please come up and Mr. Tex said, when you are ready, you can go ahead and proceed.
Speaker 3: And convince the president that Texas. 4535 Julian Street, Denver, Colorado. Hubert Humphrey, who I may be the only one here, are old enough to remember once stated The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life. The children those are in who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick and needy and the handicapped. Tonight, you move to meet the needs of one of those groups, and I applaud that. But it is very unfortunate that you are nearly is not nearly as vigorous in meeting the needs of another the homeless who are equally deserving but are nearly as politically but are not nearly as politically advantaged, advantageous to support. I apologize for my delivery and hope that in the future you will be as vigorous in your support of the homeless as you are of the children of the city.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Texar. Gloria Higgins.
Speaker 6: My name is Gloria Higgins, 1931 South senior, Denver, Colorado. I'm president of an organization called Executives Partnering to Invest in Children. And also a board member for the Denver Preschool Program. And as a representative of the children and the board and all of the individuals here to support us, I'd like to ask all the individuals to stand up that support the Denver preschool program. And then I'd like to thank the City Council for considering our request for reauthorization on this year's ballot. The as is Councilman Brooks said the ballot initiative is to reauthorize the Denver Preschool Program and expand the program since 19 or since. Oh, my goodness. Since 2007, when the program first began, we have had a lot of families and a lot of children that have been served by this program. And Councilman Brooks has given you the numbers. I think what I would like to say, as one of the founding board members and the founding board chair is to say we had three responsibilities. One was that we not supplant already existing dollars that were there to serve the children, the four year olds. The other was to create an evaluation program so that as reauthorization comes up, we know that we're serving the kids in the right way, and there are results that are being proven. And then the third is to make sure that the quality of the Denver preschool, the programs that are supporting and serving the Denver preschool program, are increasing in quality so that the quality of the education that the kids get has improved by the use of these dollars. And I feel very comfortable in saying that that has, in fact, occurred. I think the next part that is most important is the fact that the tax will be the tax that we're requesting is $0.15 per $100 of spending. That's a 33 cent increase. We acknowledge that that may is not always an important factor to increase the tax, but the kids that are being served and the families that are being served will be much broader if we have this increase tax. So we're asking the Denver voters to support our works because we know it works because it prepares young children for kindergarten, because it helps parents in the community work through the expansion of the summer program and the extended day, and because it supports the community to graduate a better prepared workforce through its commitment to early learning. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Michigan. Joe Marie Garcia.
Speaker 0: My name is Jerry Garcia. I live in 1180 Yosemite Street. I am a single mother.
Speaker 1: Of a six year old daughter who three years ago was enrolled with the Denver Preschool.
Speaker 0: Program as a single mother. This program really helped me greatly. As you know, Denver preschool tuition is at $800 a month. That is something on my income alone I could not afford. The program has not only helped me through tuition, but also to being a who's my daughter. Being a single child, it taught her how to share, how to meet new friends. Among other things, as far as shapes, colors, patterns, little things like that, minimal that I wasn't able to teach her in the time I was at home with her. She actually went into kindergarten and she started to learn how to sound outwards. She will actually she went into preschool, learning how to sound out words. She went into kindergarten already reading because of the.
Speaker 1: Denver preschool program. Let's see. Sorry. My daughter Tasia now more than.
Speaker 0: Knew more than most kids going into kindergarten. She was helping out the teachers greatly in like helping, you know, help the kids understand some of the things she already knew.
Speaker 1: Every time I'd pick her up from school, I.
Speaker 0: Got so many compliments on how great she was in class. And I have the Denver Preschool Program to thank for that. And that's why I'm here. And I believe it's a great program, and I hope that other parents get the opportunity to have the same the same opportunity me and my daughter did.
Speaker 1: My daughter is now.
Speaker 0: Headed to first grade, and I am confident that she will do extremely well going forward in school. She has great confidence and is excited more than ever about.
Speaker 1: School that I.
Speaker 0: Never thought she'd be this way. And I have that to thank the Denver Preschool Program. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Ms.. Garcia. Amber Monk.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Amber Munk.
Speaker 6: I live in northwest Denver. I am here as.
Speaker 1: A mother and as a conscientious.
Speaker 6: Member of the community. I am one of thousands of women and men who call ourselves heroine mommies. And I'm one of hundreds of families in Sunni northwest Denver community. And I can tell you as a member of both that the education of our youth is the single most important issue. It comes up day in, day out, on the forums, at meetings, and at every gathering that we have. It is absolutely critical from our.
Speaker 1: Viewpoint as parents.
Speaker 6: As community members, as property owners, as consumers to keep pushing this project forward. Right now, Denver is, in fact, leading the nation in its education of youth. And I would ask and beg that we continue to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Miss Monk. Cheryl Caldwell. And as Cheryl comes up, I want to call the next four speakers who are Paul Asper, Pamela Harris, Stephanie Romero and Mike Yankovic. You all can come up to the podium and Ms.. Caldwell, you can begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. I'm Cheryl Caldwell. I'm director for Early Education for Denver Schools. I live at 2707 South Newark Court. I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in support of the Denver Preschool Program. This program has been valuable to Denver public schools in a number of ways. When it was first passed, it allowed us to greatly expand our offerings, especially to create more full day programs for students previously and half day classes for the 20 1415 school year. We will serve 3344 four year olds in full day and 1000 in half day. In addition, we serve 1382 three year olds, mostly in half day classes. And that's partly possible because we could use our our Colorado preschool program dollars to go to three year olds in great need of preschool because the dollars were freed up by Denver Preschool Program. We've been able to have our preschool classrooms for four year olds rated by DPI through Costar, and this helps us strengthen our message of developmentally appropriate practice for our youngest students. It also provides information for parents regarding the quality of our schools. The addition of the class instrument for assessing classroom interactions has been particularly helpful. The quality improvement dollars that have been provided have helped strengthen our professional development, planning and activities. As one example, all of the paraprofessionals in every preschool classroom were able to attend 15 hours of training throughout the year on a variety of topics at no cost to the district. All are supported by the quality improvement dollars that we have. These trade trainings were all very high quality and have increased the skills of these paraprofessionals. We see our relationship with DPI as a partnership to strengthen the quality of preschool programs. One of their main goals and to increase the availability of preschool to all families, but particularly to those in greatest need of their of these important educational services, which is our population mostly. Our agency visions are aligned in the desire to have any four year old whose parent want parents, want preschool for them to be able to attend a high quality program. Our school district benefits greatly by having all the all children who participate in this program enter kindergarten ready to succeed. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Ms.. Caldwell. Paul Asper.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Paul Aspirate live at 515 Milwaukee Street and Denver. I had the privilege of sitting on the Denver Preschool Program Board of Advisors and I am also a proud citizen of this Denver community. I'm an even prouder father of a little two year old girl who will one day be in Denver preschools in my non daddy time. I'm a regional operations director at DaVita, where I run a $50 million piece of our business and employ 235 skilled health care providers, nurses, patient care technicians, social workers, dietitians, managers, and others, the vast majority of whom live in our greater Denver area. I stand before you today to advocate for the reauthorization and expansion of funding for the Denver Preschool Program. To be clear, I am not an advocate of blindly throwing dollars at our education system, but I am a huge advocate of smart investment. And as a member of the business community, as an employer, as a father, as a citizen of this wonderful, forward thinking Denver community. Investing in early childhood education and specifically investing in the Denver preschool program is about as smart of an investment as it gets. There's mounting evidence that for every dollar that a community invests in pre-K pre-K programs like the Denver Preschool Program, that communities like ours get back $2 or $4 or even $10 down the road. Kids with strong preschool options are more likely to be ready for kindergarten to not need costly remediation by the fourth grade. To avoid teen pregnancy, to stay out of jail, to graduate high school, to go to college, to have higher earning potential over their lifetime. And ultimately, they're more likely to be productive members of our Denver community for just three additional pennies out of every $100. And we can continue to ensure that all Denver kids have access to the same high quality preschool options that my daughter and Alyssa want to one day have access to. We can ensure long term savings to our communities, taxpayers for that tiny investment. We can ensure a more robust community for our economy, for our community, long term and selfishly, a better educated and more highly skilled workforce works to ensure that for people like me and for others and employers around our community, that we have a better educated and more highly skilled workforce. I'm a huge advocate of smart investment and for the long term prosperity of our citizens, citizens and our community. The Denver Preschool Program is about as smart as it gets. As a businessperson, as an employer, as a father, as a proud citizen of Denver. I implore this council and this community to get behind this smart investment and to allow voters the chance to reauthorize and expand funding for the Denver Preschool program. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Asper. Pamela Harris.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Pamela Harris. 1090 Cherokee. It's about four blocks that way. I'm the president and CEO at Mile High Montessori Early and learning centers. And for those of you who don't know my compatriot here, one of the things she is is president emeritus at Mile High Montessori. I also have the privilege of being the chief operating officer for the Denver Preschool Program when it first launched. So I can't tell you how excited and happy I am that we're here and ready to reauthorize. I'm here to talk a little bit about my program and the benefits that we have through being a member of Denver , a preschool program. Mile High Montessori. We're the largest and oldest provider of subsidized child care in Denver. So the families that we're serving are low income families, their working families. And what deep tuition credit has enabled them to do is to attend quality preschool programs that their children can have the same benefit regardless of their economic background in order to be ready for school. We over the years in quality improvement, I still say we $8 million to providers, a little over 1 million this year for 268 providers. I still remember when we had five providers and just 68 kids. So the impact that this has had on the community as well as our families is immeasurable. We do, as I said, serve working families. So this tuition credit, the reauthorization would give our families an opportunity to have the extended day program. So that is meeting the needs. The summer program that we did have in the beginning and had to pull back at the time. So to reinstate that again would be a wonderful benefit for the families that were serving in the community. So thank you for your support. And here's to Denver Preschool Program.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Miss Harris. Stephanie Romero.
Speaker 0: Good evening, members. My name is Stephanie Romero and I've been teaching for eight years, one year in first grade and seven years in kindergarten. And I fully support the Denver preschool program because I can see a noticeable difference in the students that do not attend preschool. Students that have not attended preschool show up in the classroom being unfamiliar with school structure, any routines or rituals. In most cases, they struggle with holding tools, and they are usually the ones who try to escape the classroom with tears in their eyes. In my experience, I would say it takes anywhere from weeks to months to get these students to a place where they are comfortable with school. During that time, valuable instruction is being lost and their needs are sometimes taking attention away from other students. Most students who have not had the opportunity to attend preschool are lacking a number of prerequisite skills, such as book handling, being able to hold and manipulate writing tools, letter sound knowledge, being familiar with their printed name and writing it, limited numeracy knowledge. But most importantly, they lack the confidence that they need to become independent learners by the end of the year. A few of these students are not where they need to be, and it breaks my heart to have to tell a family that their student needs to do kindergarten another year. In the case of one of my previous students and his family, we communicated on a daily basis and I informed them of strategies they could work on at home. But the extra year of schooling was just what he needed when he went through kindergarten again. Little by little, he became more familiar with the routines. And by the end of the year, his confidence made him walk like he was ten feet tall. Had he attended preschool, he would currently be attending a school with his age like peers. I wholly support the Denver Preschool Program and pray that it will continue as students are expected to perform at higher levels at early ages. It is very important that all students are given the gift of time to develop in an excellent preschool environment that will prepare them for kindergarten and beyond. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Ms.. Romero. Mike Yankovic.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Mike Yanukovich. I'm the president and CEO of the Children's Museum of Denver. I'm also excuse me, I have a back injury, so I'll try and make this work up here. I'm also on the call star board and I'm a proud member to be a co-chair for this campaign, in addition to Councilman Brooks and Mario Cabrera. I just wanted to give you a few key elements of why I'm so excited and passionate about this campaign and also being a co-chair for it. We're educating young children at a time when actually most of the brain development is happening. We know this from science and research. We're also encouraging parents to place their kids in a high quality program with significant impact and proven outcome. Many of these were a few of you may not know this, but the Denver Preschool Program is actually a national model, and there's a lot of interest in what we're doing right here . Seattle and Cincinnati are two municipalities in cities that are learning about the program and like to bring this home and replicate it in their communities. We've seen the proof that the Denver Preschool Program works and the Denver Preschool Program, children in the program are outperforming their peers. Lastly, and I think really importantly to me is we need to expand this program to help families to know that their children are in a really safe learning environment, particularly when they're all day at work. And what this does is it provides the opportunity for a productive workforce today, but most importantly, for a highly well-educated workforce and productive workforce in the future. So I thank you for your consideration, and I appreciate all of your support on this. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Yanukovich. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions from members of Council. Do we have any questions, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: No, thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple of questions. Cheryl Caldwell, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone, I wanted to ask a couple of questions about how many four year olds are in the Denver public school system.
Speaker 1: The number that I said was the total number 33. Wait. This is our capacity for next year 3344 in four day programs, 1002 and a half day for a total of 4346.
Speaker 8: And last year, 3000 were served. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: So not all. So it was it was not quite that low? No, it was probably very close to 4000 last year. This past year. That's just past.
Speaker 8: Okay. And can you tell me of those children, how many of them are children with disabilities? How how is the program serving children with disabilities?
Speaker 1: So we serve any children who are identified with disabilities and either with three and four year olds in inclusive classrooms. So 60% typical kids, 40% with disabilities. In some particular models of programs. Or if the if the disability is very mild, it would be in a regular classroom with an itinerant person who came and provided services like speech language or occupational therapy, that kind of thing. I don't have the exact number right off the top of my head. I would say it is about 7%. Okay.
Speaker 6: Great.
Speaker 8: So my next question is for someone with the Denver preschool program is Jennifer.
Speaker 2: Jennifer's here.
Speaker 8: Okay. Jennifer, what I would like to know is what is being done to identify the students that Stephanie Romero talked about that come to school totally ill prepared because they didn't have this head start to identify them and try to get them into the program. And mean I know DPS in the past can't share their lists, but is there a way that you all are trying to identify who are those kids so that all of the kids have an opportunity to start school and be at that same level playing field?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jennifer Landrum with the Denver Preschool Program. The Denver Preschool Program. Because it is a universal program, we work to provide outreach to every four year old in the city and county of Denver, rather than focusing currently at a specific target group of children, such as children with special needs. Many children with special needs are identified through early intervention when the between the time that they're birth and three years old, and then when they turn three, they begin to be identified by their preschool provider, by a physician, by the public school system, and that is how they are identified. That said, I think that we in the city and county of Denver have a gap of about 25% of our kids, approximately, that we're not reaching. And so I think one of the things that we need to do a better job of is hone in on on those more difficult to reach children, to bring them into the program.
Speaker 8: So my letter question was not particularly about children with disabilities, but children who are not being reached. Right. And I mean, we can absolutely play a role in getting the word out through our newsletters and that kind of thing. I don't know that that reaches everybody, but those are the kids I'm concerned about because they're showing up to school, not being prepared and, you know, maybe through the churches other ways, you know, we can help get that word out as well.
Speaker 0: So currently what we are doing is this year in particular, and we have increased our public outreach, public awareness campaign through billboards, bus shelters. We're doing a little bit of radio, a little bit of TV. We're doing ads in community newspapers. We're at community outreach fairs talking with parents. One of the things that the Denver Preschool Program Board has spent some time talking about together is the children that we aren't reaching are the more expensive and difficult to reach children. And we're thinking through very carefully how we might reach them, whether it's, as you said, in churches going to as Amber talked about, reaching out to some of the mom groups and in part being in the neighborhoods. And so I. Think that that is something that we need to do in partnership with people who worked more deeply into the neighborhoods to help us reach them. And it is something that I do agree that we need to do together.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 0: You're welcome. Thank you for the question.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman. No comment.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Councilman Ortega, this is this is my heart as well in this program. And the board and I and all of us have have gone and had these really intense discussions. But we know one place where all these kids and their parents are coming through on their through them are human services. And it's it's starting to see how can we begin to partner with other agencies that are already at the city, that are already serving some of our most vulnerable population in the city, and see if there can't be a component of an educational component there as well. And so I appreciate you asking that question. And it's something where there there are certain board members and even Jennifer, just as she stated, are focusing on some of those issues.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman Lemon.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to make a comment.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, we.
Speaker 3: Will allow a.
Speaker 5: Moment now for the comment section. Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I know this is going to sound like a very basic question, but I think we probably need to go over it. Please go over again. Whoever wants to do this. Why? We need to reauthorize the Denver Preschool Program. They know it's been in existence for ten years. But, you know, the population of Denver has changed. Kids grow, families move away. And so can someone come up and talk about that? And then also tell me how many? I'll tell it. I'll say the the number of kids that are the statistics that I have. But I have hear that there are probably 18,897 three and four year olds in Denver, and there is a projection of 21,711 by 2019. And so that's why I just need for you to just lay the groundwork someone as to why we really need to reauthorize it.
Speaker 5: Anybody can remember if you want to.
Speaker 2: You know, what I want to do is let Jennifer answer that because she's a CEO. But I'll just say the very basic reason is that this program sunsets in 2016 of January. And we as a board have been working for the last year of saying when is a good time to go into the public and reauthorize this program? Just recently this spring, we looked and we went into the field and we had tremendous support to go in November. But there's some other reasons of why and I'll have Jennifer answer is.
Speaker 6: Are.
Speaker 3: You going to continue?
Speaker 6: This program is very important to me. This is our time to get as much basic information out as we can. When you talk about Sunset in 2016, that means that it will go away. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct. It will go away. It will not be in existence any longer.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember X Councilwoman Monteiro. So I think one of the reasons that we want to reauthorize this program is just exactly what you were talking about, which is the the boom that we're going to see and the number of three and four children in the future. So if we just look at four year olds, which is who this program is charge to care for, I you you said some numbers. And right now we are serving around 5000 children. Our population is around 9000. The increase that you're talking about sounded like it was almost doubling. So if we don't continue this program, not only we won't will we not be serving the four year olds that are coming up this coming year? Actually, in 2017, 2018, business, the program ends in 2016. We don't have a hope of continuing to serve the numbers of children that we're currently serving in the city and county of Denver. And I think that that's incredibly important for us to do. In addition to that, I think when we think about the income levels of our children and I'm taking a look at what our our Denver population is. We have. Looking at about 50% of our children are below the at at the poverty line or below. And then we have another group of children that are free and reduced price lunch. The Denver Preschool Program really reaches out and serves our children at the poverty level and at free and reduced price lunch, which as you know , is 185% of FPL. And it's those children that we're able to provide higher tuition credits and make sure that they're in high quality programs. And this preschool program gets them ready for kindergarten so that we can hand them off to Denver Public Schools or they're already in Denver Public Schools being funded in part through CDP and help them be successful that third grade, help them graduate from high school ready to go on to college. And I think it all begins at our youngest kids and at four and and has we all know one of the changes in the ordinance that we've talked about is when we are able through revenue and different other policy changes to serve younger. So I think it becomes very important and I think and I've said this before, I think it's a jewel of the city and that Denver was very forward thinking in 2006 to create this program. And it's something that I think we need to sustain.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Arroyo.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Jennifer. Jennifer, you can stay there. I'm a strong supporter of this program. Denver tried at least one other time before 2006 to put in place a preschool program. And I think we just indicated by what other city, how other cities are looking at us. I think we got this as close to right as we could. But on behalf of a constituent query, I want you to talk a little bit about administrative costs, because the program that we passed had a cap of, I believe, 5% for salaries, office expense insurance. And in this reauthorization, we're taking that to 7%. So could you talk about the number of staff you have and the needs of the program going forward from the administrative level?
Speaker 0: Sure. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Robb. Yeah, the program does have a 5% administrative cap. And as we go forward, we have asked for an additional 2%. And the admin does cover salaries, accounting benefits, office space. And one thing that that you did not mention, which is with our legal costs. So it's the kind of wraps up basic admin. Right now, our city revenues are $13.4 million, 592,000 of that is the administrative portion. The 2%, if we look just at this year, 2% would drop in an additional $346,000 into the program, bringing us to a total of 938,000. I think the Denver preschool program right now consists of four staff and a part time office manager, a 40% office manager that we sell we share with the Urban Land Conservancy. I think one of the primary reasons that we are asking for a 2% increase is is not to go out and go crazy and spend an additional $346,000. But it's really two things. We need to be able to recruit and retain highly qualified staff. And we we have struggled with that. And this past year, we needed to hire a director of operations. And we we had to not have that salary at the place that would have really been competitive in our community. We also want to be able to have equity equity across salary positions. And right now it's not we don't necessarily have an equity across all salary positions. Our plans and we've taken a deep look at what we would like to do. We do feel we need one extra staff person to really manage this program well. The majority of our program is managed through contractors, and I think if we had one extra staff person, that was a really strong support for the three directors. In addition to myself, I think we could do a better job. The other just very basic reason that we've asked for this is when we have the economic downturns. If that is, it becomes another reason why it's difficult to recruit and retain staff just because of the fluctuations, the dips in salary if they were to happen, if we had. Bad ones that such as the one we had in 2010, we would actually lose a staff person. What we don't lose are the numbers of children that we're serving, the number of families we're trying to reach, the number of contractors we're trying to manage, the evaluation that we're trying to undertake. So I think it's a very small investment to create greater stability in the program. And I hope that answers your question thoroughly.
Speaker 7: Could you just you did bring up one other thing. You talked about you work with some contract folks. Are they considered administrative or are they people doing outreach perhaps, or other jobs that fall outside of that category?
Speaker 0: So our contractors fall in in a very variety of places. We have customer service and enrollment. We have evaluation. We have communications and outreach. Quality improvement and quality rating contractors. And then, of course, the majority of our dollars go into tuition credits. I took a look at this. I had a conversation with one of one of the council members who who she and I had a very rich conversation around this. So I went back and I looked at it. And if we added in customer service and enrollment and evaluation, which I could make the case would be administrative costs . Our admin, our current admin is 10.3%.
Speaker 7: Okay. I heard that in committee. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Jennifer. Do we have any other questions from members of council, steve. None. The public hearing on 574 is closed now. Time for comments of members of council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. When I I got elected four years ago, I had all these grandiose dreams of of all of the promises that I talked about on the campaign trail. And preschool was not one of them. And Carol Boykin, who was the council representative, had moved on. She was no longer she was term limited and she wasn't term limited for she term. She ran for mayor.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: Which limits terms. And so she was no longer on council. And the Denver preschool program found out that I had two kids that I lived in northeast Denver and asked if I'd be a part of the board. And at that time, my thinking was, well, you know, there's a lot of other things that I'm doing. I want to, you know, kind of focus my area on economic development, some other things. And little did I know that this was the main indicator of a good job force a good workforce in our city. And it was one of the most important decisions that I made four years ago. And I'm excited that I did, did it. We're here today because we're at a crossroads in America and all over this country. We are finding that we have third graders that are not that can't read, that are not doing well in math in the third grade, not testing well at all. And that is a 97% correlation to graduation rates in high school. 97%, if you are not if you cannot read, if you if you are not up to your skills in math by the third rate, that is a 97% correlation that you and I graduate. And then if you are not graduate from high school, there's a 99% correlation that you'll go right into the justice system. And so this is a serious issue that we're facing. And we see that data shows that early childhood education is the key. It's the foundation to begin to change this horrible trend that's going on in America and even in Colorado and in Denver. And so I'm excited to support this. Couple of weeks ago, we were in mayor council in the mayor said this was his most important vote on his eight short years on council. And I kind of sat there and looked at him, you know, because you never know. You know, we're all political leaders here, you know. Did he really mean that? And you could look in his eyes and I talked to him a little bit after and he really meant it. And as I think and I began to reflect on on what this means for our city, how this can really turn the trend around in education in our city, our city, I would say the same thing. Each council person will have to assess that for themselves. But I would say the same thing. This is the most important vote since I've been on city council. I think it's the most important thing that we have to do. My kids care is to Kenya is five and Mochi is seven. Kenya and Mochi have both been through this program and they're doing great and and Kenya is going to host center next year. Really excited about that. And she'll eventually be in the different preschool program. I'm not here because of my kids because at the end of the day, they're their parents are going to read to them every night. We're going to make sure that they're going to succeed. I'm here because of their friends, all of their friends in the coal neighborhood who are living below the poverty line, who aren't going to class, who aren't in school, who aren't doing well, whose parents aren't investing in them. I'm doing this because at the end of the day, if we can get those students engaged, if we can get those students a part of that 99% kindergarten ready, a part of that 64% testing, well, in third grade, that will begin to see a change in this city. And I believe that as we begin to grow this program, as we begin to invest in our future, we're going to see a tremendous change in the city. I want to I want to give a special thanks to Councilwoman Lehman, my sponsor, on this bill. She has a tremendous heart for for early childhood education. And you'll hear her remarks and also want to give special thanks to Jennifer Landrum, who is the CEO of this program and who we as a board hired less than a year ago to make sure that she would reauthorize this this program. And you've done a fabulous job. You know, you're good when when David Broadwell comes up to you after after a committee and say that was one of the best committee presentations I've heard in a long time. So job well done, Jennifer. Tomorrow starts now. Tomorrow starts now. And I want to encourage all of my city council colleagues to vote in this way and support this and send this to the ballot and send a strong message to the city of Denver that we need to reauthorize this program. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Lemon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I would like to take a moment to recognize.
Speaker 1: The queen of early.
Speaker 6: Childhood education and a Joe Haines. Would you just stand up and actually. She has been my guiding light through all of this. And I think she just perseveres and perseveres.
Speaker 1: And we are here.
Speaker 6: Today because of the ANA Jo's insights and efforts. So thank you. I'll be very quick when I'm just going to go down the things that I think are really great about this program. It's number one, it serves all families.
Speaker 0: Any family that.
Speaker 6: Wants hears about it, knows about it can get served by this program. Number two, there is an evaluation process, a strong evaluation process in the program so that the schools that are serving these children are graded and evaluated so that our children go to very, very good schools because we work with them to be very, very good schools.
Speaker 1: And therefore, it.
Speaker 6: Addresses the kind of education that they are getting.
Speaker 0: And finally.
Speaker 6: They serve as such a base, as you have heard tonight for the Denver Children's Future, that how can you not support this? So I ask all of you to be strong supporters. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilwoman Lehman and Councilwoman Kim each.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to all of the speakers who came out tonight and who many of you serve on boards and volunteer with this program. Our Serve Children.
Speaker 0: And Raise Children. I have a graduate of DPI. In two short weeks he'll be entering kindergarten. And so one of the things I wanted to emphasize is I think that it's a really smart move that we are collectively saying and doing this program. We had some conversation about this at the committee. It's not just about helping individuals who are struggling pay for preschool. It is that and that's really important. You heard $800 a month as one price tag DPS. My son's a Denison Montessori DPS school. It's a little bit less a month, I think 660 a month. But it's not easy even for middle class families to be putting out that much cash on a monthly basis. So it is about the financial assistance, but by virtue of having it collective and having the evaluation and the rating system, quality is improved for every parent , whether or not you needed the financial resources or not. And that's really important. Our schools are one of the places where we do still have some mix of incomes. In some places I realize it's not always is as distributed as we would like it to be, but every time you have an improvement in quality, it benefits those who need it. The financial assistance is the as well as those who do not. And so for me, that's really critical. You know, having watched particularly the DPS deliver this program within.
Speaker 1: A school.
Speaker 0: Was really quite astounding in terms of the quality of the staffing, the services that they had. I remember talking to one of our instructors, one of the paraprofessionals, and saying, I spent the day learning about how to talk about science with preschoolers, you know, so it was really quite, quite impressive. So so I want to just remind our public about these benefits, about whether or not you actually need this financial assistance. And it makes the difference between going to school or not, which many of these families do or the benefits that we all receive as parents and.
Speaker 1: As these kids.
Speaker 0: Grow into our community. So thank you for what you do, and I'll be proud to support this and thank Councilman Brooks for his leadership.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I know for many of the enthusiasts that have come tonight and who believe so just so firmly in this program, that it may be hard to believe that a person who really has worked for children all of her life and who worked at the state level to enhance the Colorado preschool program year after year would not be supportive of this program. But I am not and I want to explain some of the things that come into this from my point of view, so that people can understand why is it that perhaps a city program is not seen as the answer to me? First of all, it was talked about children who outperform those who have not gone to preschool. I have no quarrel with that comment. The only thing that I have discovered is that the data cannot break out the program that is actually dealing with the child. They can't work out data from the Denver Preschool Program versus the Colorado preschool. Program versus C cap versus Head Start. All of the data is lumped together. And so when you talk about the advantages that children have, the number that you have is that collective amount of advantage. I don't know what extent Colorado Preschool or Denver Preschool Program has in that, nor any of the others. But I do know that all the people I have talked to have confirmed the fact that the numbers are smushed together. And you can't say that this is a great success for one of the programs versus another of the programs versus another of the programs. I do want to comment on the administrative costs because I can't as I say, I've been a strong supporter of the Colorado Preschool Program, is primarily an at risk program, which I have felt money was certainly well spent on. And when I was in the state legislature, I always tried to increase that line item because so much of that money came to Denver. We did get by far a large, disproportionate amount when you looked at the state. So it's a good way to funnel money. Here are administrative costs of what they're actually finding is administrative costs are about the same as running the Colorado preschool program, $70 million program, versus a $15 million program. So the economy of scale is something that's important to me. I would have far rather had the Colorado Preschool Program expand than to add another entire level. And I have talked about my concern about the administrative costs. I'm pleased to hear that that we are talking about adding other things in. But 10% still doesn't get there because to me, when you take a look at the budget, I do have the budget and the numbers of things that are not included in administrative costs come up to about 10%. Part of that would actually then be 12% if we take a look at this increase in the media contracts that have just come up. Now, I'm pleased that you explained that we're not reaching a certain number of children. And that's part of the reason, because I was going to ask, what is the reason for a 43% increase in media contracts this year? I mean, surely it isn't because there's an election possibly coming up. So what was the reason? Those are those particular programs that they're contracting with CBS Outdoor Billboards, RTD, Comcast Radio. I personally like the idea that Councilman Brooks raised. Of working with our human rights are always human services. That's where you're going to meet more of the kids that are going to be needing the service, not the parents and kids who read billboards or who happen to try to read all the advertising in the RTD shelters. You have to spend the money wisely. Now, 43% this year. Increase in that makes me concerned about this economy of scale and what we are spending on overhead. When you put it all together, I add without that extra 2%, it was going to be with an increase in in the cost, there's going to be 17% now could be up to 19% if you keep that kind of spending on media contracts. So that's just too high for a program that right now has a $15 million pot. And you're hoping with this increase to get a $19 million pot. I don't believe it's the best way to go about it. If the voters were to decide they did not want a tax increase and they did not want higher administrative costs, they could say no this year. And yes, I realize people will back to reauthorize the program. They still have time. It doesn't end till the end of December 2016. So the the future of the program is not at stake. It's whether you want to increase the tax and whether you want to increase administrative expense. I do not want to do either. And I will be voting against it.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Fatima and Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I was hoping that Ms.. Romero was still here because I just wanted to compliment her on her testimony tonight. She was the I believe she was a preschool teacher. Correct. That offered her testimony. And I thought, you know, we talk a lot about kindergarten readiness, but nobody really knows what that means. But she spelled it out very clearly in her testimony tonight. You know, you might think that, you know, picking up pens or colors, you know, and drawing with them comes naturally to all children, just to name one of the skills she mentioned or even book handling. But the truth is that that's not the case, and it's not necessarily a matter of income or intelligence or anything of that nature. I like to speak about this from a personal level. My son had, as a young child, displayed what I would call a tactile phobia and really did not like to pick up lots of different kinds of things and touch them and manipulate them, as most children do. Consequently, he never picked up things like Play-Doh and learned the strength and the dexterity skills that you get from playing with a substance like that. Consequently, he did not develop pinching skills very well for a long time, so he started in the preschool program actually at age three, and then also of course took advantage of the Denver preschool program activities at age four. But it wasn't until about halfway through kindergarten that he really mastered, you know, that ability to grasp an object, pinch an object like this, to put it to paper and actually, you know, write something that we might recognize as letters. That is just a very personal story about, you know, how I experience this path to kindergarten readiness in my own home. And we cannot a lot of those things that Ms.. Romero described, you know, I think we take for granted that, you know, most children are just going to naturally develop those, you know, those skills on their own. But they don't that doesn't happen naturally in all households, which underscores so much why we need these educational opportunities so that people like Ms.. Romero are not having to have a kindergartner repeat the class again just to gain those basic skills, not to mention all the good testimony that we've heard tonight about how mastering the , you know, these these very basic beginning skills at a young age creates a foundation on which we can build all these other skills, which leads to, you know, folks actually graduating from college and being ready in the market, you know, as Councilman Brooks has so eloquently expressed tonight, you know, and then ready to, you know, become like what we call a contributing member of society. So all of those steps are just tiny building blocks that we that we build on. And they need to be available to all children equally to help level that playing field and give kids that best leg up like, you know, from the gate straight out of the chute. So, you know, I really get this in a very real way, having experienced some of these issues at home. And I am very happy to support this tonight and recommend that it be put on the ballot so that all our Denver residents can vote on this, this evening. And I thank you all for all your testimony this evening. And if someone should see Ms.. Romero, please tell her my gratitude on helping to really explain what it means to be kindergarten ready. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilwoman Sheperd. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleagues for working on this. I want to thank the group for actually, you know, coalescing identifying this as a priority in moving forward with this. I, too, am the proud papa of a of a now second grader who went through the program and, you know, started very little. She started reading when she was three years old. She started reading and she was three. I didn't start reading in 2 hours. My wife, kindergartner, first grade, maybe 14. But no, I education is it's as a human right. This is something when you go on and you take this on a global scale and you ask folks a question like this, like we're talking about putting on the ballot tonight and it's a no brainer. It's a no brainer. Who does not want an educated society? We as a country have we have a lot to catch up on. This is a this is a standard that we are not holding the flag on. We're not holding the standard when it comes to this. We are no longer the standard. Right. And I think for us, we have to snap out of that mentality. We have to snap out of the mentality that will pay an arm and a leg for a football stadium in a jail. But we won't educate our children. We'll tax ourselves to put a half a billion dollar stadium in our city boat. We're penny pinching when it comes to the education of our children. We're so happy to build jail and courthouses, but we penny pinch when it comes to the education of our children. Think about that. And I think, Councilman Brooks, you're absolutely right. The mayor, I've heard the same thing. They look at I think they measure second or third grade beds, the amount of kids in terms of their reading level and how they're performing on tests, that's how they measure the amount of beds they need in jails. That's ridiculous. So when it comes to this, is this is the investment, the best investment we can make. And, you know, does this build a shiny new granite building with gold trim and something we can say, aha, look what our tax dollars built overnight? No, but over time, it's the best investment we can make. Thank God for the folks like Anna, Joe Haines, and for the other folks that have worked, those teachers in our classrooms as preschool to high school and college professors that have worked and worked over time, even though they didn't have budgets, seem like to pull from their own pockets to pay for their supplies in their classrooms. Thank God that 30 years ago, 40 years ago, that they invested because a lot of us in this room wouldn't be here if it were not for that investment. We need to do more and we need to regain that flag. We need to capture that flag back. We need to be the standard in the world when it comes to preschool education in this country, in this city and in this world. And this is one of those first little steps that we can take. Think about it. Think about what we have spent our money on. You know what? We can be strong. I support this move forward onto the ballot and I hope this gets adopted by voters in November. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Nemeth.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. When we embarked on the preschool program eight years ago, we weren't we weren't buying a pig in a poke. There was good scientific data that suggested that we were making the right move, doing the right thing, but we were taking a risk. We were somewhat on the cutting edge. And so there's a there's a a gamble there that we took. And the voters of Denver took. But eight years later, the data is in the the you know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And that meal has now been served, or at least the first course of it. And it's delicious. It's it's good. It's it's it's proving its value. And so it's certainly no longer a pig in a poke. It's it's a sure bet. And I appreciate Mr. Aspas reference to it as an investment, not just the right thing to do, but a good investment in the future. And I think the value of this investment is being borne out in spades. So I'll be voting to put this on the ballot. I'll certainly be encouraging my constituents and other citizens in the city to to vote for this. If you care about the future of our kids, this is the right thing to do. And if you care about the future of our city, it's the smart thing to do. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you all for coming out tonight and testifying and being volunteers. I'm sure that it's a labor of love and share commitment to the children of Denver. What I want to say is that in listening to the testimony tonight and just following the the thought of Councilman Ebert is that we know that it works. We know that it's been proven. You've talked about it, Councilman. Never talked about the data. And how often are we able to say that we know something works? Shoot. Even public works. Sometimes they're over there working on some kind of sewer and they're hoping that it works. And maybe it will. And maybe it'll sprung a leak. But we know, we absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt that this program works for it works for our children. And so this November, should this pass, should the proposal pass? Should it pass council tonight? I'm a yes vote. But this November, Denver voters will have a great opportunity to re pledge their commitment to our children and also to our to our families. I'm just going to digress really quick here, but one of the really big things that I think is so nice should this pass, is the idea that the summer programs would be reinstated. I got to tell you, my daughter now is 14 and this is the first summer that I've actually counted. Okay? There's only 15 more days until school starts. And so, you know, I think of her now as a teenager, but when you have three and four year old four year olds, it's so important for parents to have the predictability. We're going to do this today. We're going to go here and there. It helps the children to continue their learning and all the cute little things that they do. But it also really helps to eliminate stress for a family, which at the end of the day, we're all happy. If, you know, did they get did they get up on time? Did they eat right? You know, how am I feeling today? You know, just to be able to have a day that a family has truly enjoyed without all the other things that go with just life in general. And for this particular program, just to lift a family up one more day as their parenting or as kids are going through, learning all these little things, you know, building self-confidence , wanting to, you know, wanting to be a self advocate, wanting to read, wanting to throw stuff, you know, wanting to do anything that we watched them do as children. It's so exciting. And watching three year olds, just their little you can actually see their little brain sort of, you know, it's on fire because they're so excited about life and the things that they want to do. And so I just want to say that I am very, very excited to be. Able to cast a yes vote so that we could get it on the ballot. And let's go forward and let's have fun and have our kids see how excited and are all the people that work with children every day and have them see how excited we are to be able to prop up our families and our children and to be proud of this particular program. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just I just had some housekeeping real quick that I wanted to clear up, just just for our council members and the thousands of people who are watching and the folks who decide to show up tonight. And Mr. Slattery, just make sure that I'm right on this. But on the ordinance changes, the ordinance changes will go to it to effect as soon as the mayor signs them. So that won't take too long. But the ballot the ballot question, if should this pass the ballot question goes into effect January 1st, 2050. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. So I just wanted all of our counsel folks to be aware of that and that will reauthorize in 2026. Okay. All right.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, do we have any other comments from members of council? I would just like to add, I come from a family of educators. Mother is a teacher and I know several educators. And I just think about the great deal of work and that they put into mentoring that our kids get a quality education. And I remember a conversation I had with a kindergarten teacher and she's talking about struggles. And she she mentioned one student in particular who at kindergarten had never opened a book. And the only way to describe that is a tragedy. And when I was growing up in Missouri, when we talked about early childhood education, I didn't participate because at the time they thought early childhood education should be solely for those children with special needs. And thankfully, science and history have proven how vital that is. And now as a country, we're seeing the emphasis of it. And programs that are coming to fruition like the Denver Preschool Program. And the success that it has had, I think, is not is unquestionable. And for that matter that we're simply doing here is to ask, should Denver voters have the opportunity to reauthorize that? It's just certainly a no brainer. I mean, the proof is in the pudding what has occurred. And I think that the best thing we can do is make investments. And those investments should be in people because as I believe, as Mr. Asper said, the returns you can get out of those investments are tenfold that have a max . And I think about this, too, if we can come to a point as a son of an educator where all the children come in and they even level even keel, how much of a more of a quality education can our teachers give those students versus having them focus on those that are behind trying to bring them up to the same level as their peers? I mean, that's certainly an ancillary benefit of this, but I think that's just another gain of this program. Does that bring everyone on an even keel? So I certainly think it's very easy to vote yes that the Denver voters should have the opportunity to make this decision on the November ballot . So. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Brooks.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Brown. Fats.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 1: Can eat. Damon Lopez. Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. Sheppard. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Madam Secretary. Please close the vote and announce the results. Ten 192918 Is Council Bill 574 been placed upon final consideration and does pass saying that there is no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance extending the existing .12 percent sales and use tax (the “Denver Preschool Tax”) through December 31, 2026 and increasing the rate to .15 percent, dedicating the revenue derived from the tax to fund the Denver Preschool Program, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state general election on November 4, 2014; and making certain changes to the Denver Preschool Program.
(GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Asks voters to reauthorize the Denver Preschool Program for 10 years, increase the sales and use tax supporting the program by .03 percent, and approve specified programmatic changes. The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-25-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-17-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08042014_14-0622
|
Speaker 3: It has been moved in second to comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to reserve my comments for the other piece of legislation and just simply say I will be voting no on this.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman five Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just want to indicate the same message that I stated last week that I will be abstaining from both of these votes tonight because my daughter works for the sheriff's department.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments from members of Council on six 2213? None, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 0: Roll Call Fights Now Finished by Laman Lopez. Hi, Nevitt. Hi. Ortega.
Speaker 6: Abstain.
Speaker 0: Rob Shepherd. Sussman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I am secretary. Please close the vote and announce the results tonight.
Speaker 0: One day, one abstention tonight.
Speaker 3: One nay, one abstention. Council Bill 622 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. Councilman Lopez, will you please put a resolution 647 on the floor for adoption?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund.
(GOVERNMENT & SERVICES) Authorizes a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3.25 million from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund to address settlement claims. This bill was approved for filing by Councilwoman Kniech.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08042014_14-0647
|
Speaker 3: One nay, one abstention. Council Bill 622 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. Councilman Lopez, will you please put a resolution 647 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: President, I move that council resolution 647 series of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. The ordinance that we just approved moved money through a supplemental from one fund to another. In order to facilitate the resolution I'm going to be addressing just so people understand what the relationship was. I will be voting no. This is not the first settlement I have opposed during my time on council. In a few of those cases, I felt the city employees actions could be justified and a settlement never should have been proposed. But I have to tell you, this is not such a case. What happened to Mr. Hunter shouldn't have happened. I'm truly sorry for what he has been through, including pain, suffering and permanent scarring. A second reason I have opposed settlements in the past is that I found the dollar amount to be excessive. This is such a case in my mind. There should be a strong nexus between the dollar amount awarded and the severity of permanent injuries to justify the amount in front of us tonight. Those permanent injuries would have to be catastrophic. The council has been privy to comments the plaintiff himself made. About his own current physical functioning. I'm very pleased for Mr. Hunter, but I do not see damages of $3.25 million. Also, what kind of precedent and incentive to such a windfall settlement set for other potential cases? In the meantime, I fully support the mayor's actions to review this department from top down. The third party reviews called for in the settlement are important too, but I don't believe these reviews are dependent on a multi-million dollar deal. Bottom line I'll be voting against the settlement, but not because a settlement isn't warranted. To me, we're off base on the amount.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to support this bill and I'm going to support the settlement. We can't have this kind of behavior and this kind of liability in our department, especially from folks who wear a city badge or a city seal. I believe. There is no dollar amount that would make Mr. Hunter whole. I think once you have that trauma, I believe it would stay with you. And. Do I support this? Yes. At the same time, I support the administration, this council on this city, making sure these kind of settlements don't come across our desk again, not because they're expensive, because we shouldn't be voting on them in the first place. There needs to be serious reform. The mayor has said it. This administration has said it. And we look forward to making sure those reforms are in place. I know this has been a tough case. This has been tough for our city attorney. It's been tough for our cities. It's been tough for the sheriff's department. There are a lot of good men and women that still wear a badge in this city. And we should not let this case tarnish that. And that's why I support the settlement. That's why I support moving forward on reform. Finally, we all know on city council, we've all been briefed. We are also stewards of our tax dollars. From what I gather, is that in the best interests of making sure our voters and making sure that as voters at the people and county people sitting in Denver who pay tax dollars know that we're smart with their resources. This could cost us a lot more. Not just socially, not just because of what's allegedly happened. Financial. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to speak. I support this moving forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for your comments. I concur with your comments and Councilwoman Ford, so respect where you came from. But I do want to talk tonight, even though this is a very important issue citywide. On behalf of Council District ten constituents, because when I came into office, we were having a great debate on the location of a future justice center and the residents under really good leadership of the Golden Triangle, even though the Justice Center and the downtown detention center would be their new neighbor, place their faith in justice in both the courts and in our jail system. Councilman Lopez said this had been tough on many people. I think this has really been tough on those people who put their faith in our investment in a state of the art justice center. And so now I, too, am looking forward to expecting and demanding a state of the art jail operation.
Speaker 1: So, yeah.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Robert. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. We have the city attorney and the office and the chamber this evening. And I would like to ask a basic question that the citizens in my district are asking, and it's very simple. There were deputies obviously named in the lawsuit. Could you bring us up to date on what is happening or will happen to them? Thank you, Councilman Brown. Again, my name is Scott Martinez, the city attorney for Denver. I think this case put a pause button on some of the employment actions regarding those deputies in the case. This this settlement, if it is approved tonight, would settle all claims in regards to the city as well as to those individual offers, officers and deputies. And it would allow the employment matters regarding those individual officers and deputies to move forward. The pause button would be able to we be able to play in terms of holding those continuing those employment actions against those individual officers. And what actions are we looking at? Councilman, as you know, this is this is a personnel matter. So we'll have to let those follow that normal course as those individuals have certain rights and or are our city lost? Some deputies and other incidences have been fired, though, correct? That's correct. Okay. I got to tell you, this isn't harassing for our city. I don't understand how this could happen. Right. Just let me give you one example. In the county jail, there are currently 155 cameras. Surveillance cameras. There are proposed new cameras to be added and that will be another 184. So that total in the county jail will come to 339 cameras. Now, in the detention center, there are 678 cameras. You're being watched. Everyone's being watched. In this citizens are Denver are watching. You cannot do this. It is just incomprehensible to me that this can happen. I'm going to vote for this tonight, but I hope we don't see any more. But I'm afraid we will. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Do we have any other comments from members of the council? Seen on this is for resolution 647, Madam Secretary. Oracle.
Speaker 0: But no can each layman. Lopez i nevett i Ortega abstain. Rob I Sheppard Susman i Brooks Brown, i Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote announced the result.
Speaker 0: Ten one nay, one abstention.
Speaker 3: Tonight one nay, one extension. Council Resolution 647 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, we please take the next one. What should be four bills for introduction? 574 and we add three council members call this out, Fats Brooks and Lemon.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the sum of Three Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,250,000.00), payable to JAMAL HUNTER c/o RATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI, LLC, in full payment and satisfaction of all claims in Civil Action No. 12-CV-02682-JLK in the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado. (SAFETY & WELLBEING) Settles a claim involving the Denver Sheriff Department. This resolution was approved for filing at the Mayor-Council meeting on 7-22-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08042014_14-0574
|
Speaker 3: Tonight one nay, one extension. Council Resolution 647 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, we please take the next one. What should be four bills for introduction? 574 and we add three council members call this out, Fats Brooks and Lemon. I should ask Councilwoman Fox, is this for a vote or for a comment? Vote a vote. And I council members, brooks and layman comments or votes as well.
Speaker 2: Responding to that.
Speaker 3: Grab that councilman Lyman.
Speaker 5: That's fine.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilman Lopez, will you please put 574.
Speaker 1: Ordered, ordered, published, please. Mr. President, move that council 547 series of 2014 be ordered published.
Speaker 3: 574.
Speaker 1: 574.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman five Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that would refer a tax increase to the voters. It concerns the preschool tax. Now, since the July 16 government and finance meeting. I expressed many of my concerns about this program and tax increase. I made it clear that I'm a fan of preschool and an enthusiast about other currently existing programs through the state that target at risk children. I refer you to the committee discussion for my thoughts on a preferred solution. That was July 16th. But tonight, let me acknowledge, first of all, the passion of many of my colleagues for this program. Nonetheless, here's why I'll be voting no. Number one, it is a tax increase. It raises about $4 million more a year totaling there, $20 million annually. Number two, this proposal allows for higher administrative costs, which are already drastically understated. Stated administrative costs can go from 5 to 7% under this new proposal, but there's already another 10% in the budget amended from the legal definition that most of us would consider administrative costs. So from my perspective, I'm looking at do I want to raise administrative costs from what's in the what's in the ordinance from 5 to 7%. But I actually see it more as from 15 to 17%. Three, it extends the base program, which doesn't expire until December 2016, which is another ten years. Now, if this tax and this administrative increase fail, the program doesn't end. Preschool officials can bring reauthorization of the base program to people again next year. But you can go for another tax increase if they wanted to do it. But it doesn't end the program. What we're really voting on is higher administrative costs, higher taxes. The last concern I have is one that may be a little more subtle. But I went through this in other programs when I was at the state level. I believe subsidizing a program so heavily pushes the costs up. And this is one of the reasons I believe Denver has some of the highest preschool tuitions in the nation. So I am voting no on this, voting no on the tax increase, and I'm voting no for higher administrative costs.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to bring everybody's attention to 574. This is a bill which I'm on the board of the different preschool program, and I'm bringing this initiative forward to refer it to the ballot before us tonight as an ordinance and also ballot language. And this is first reading, and we'll get a chance to go over this again on second reading, have a courtesy public hearing. Thank my co sponsor, Peggy Layman, as well. Wow. In 2006, Denver decided to fund the preschool program after three tries and getting it right and figuring out the right amount and how to really go after preschool in the city of Denver. One of the things that we've learned is this. This is not just the city of Denver issue. This is a national issue as we look at education reform. Most individuals say that you have to start with early childhood education and the data supports that. The data shows in this program that 31,816 young people, four year olds, have gone through this program. 31,816 folks who would not otherwise have if we wouldn't had this program in place. The data also shows that for those individuals that go through this program, they are kindergarten ready and they're outperforming their peers who would not be in this program. When I say kindergarten ready, let me be specific. 89% of 2% of them are have receptive vocab. 98% are our grading proficiency in literacy and 99% in math. This is this is a program that's proving its effectiveness and readiness in in the city of Denver. I want to address a couple of reasons of of why we're looking at the increase as a board. When I first came on as a board, all we were looking at was this sunset date, this this program's sunset meaning is over in 2016. And we wanted to see the appropriate time to go to the ballot. And through going and doing a poll and going in the field and looking, we believe that this is the appropriate time. One of the things that we've been looking at for the increase is the continue or the funding for summer programing. We know that there is a summer learning loss for all of our kids, but it's incredibly important that we fund that summer programing to keep that going. That's not free. You know, this also adds to the demand of full day preschool. Most of our folks who are in who are single, single parent families or like my family, where both parents are working, don't have the opportunity just to put their kids anywhere. They want to begin having a full day programing. And also, we are not just seeing an increase in preschool costs in the city of Denver. We're seeing it all throughout Colorado. And for these reasons and many more, we we believe that this is going to be a successful program. Also in a state we're going from 0.012% to 0.015. That puts our sales and use tax at 3.65. That's still very competitive regionally and also nationally. And so for these reasons and many more, I hope that my colleagues will be supporting this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Lemmon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Brooks did an excellent idea recitation of why this is a good program. And I'm just going to reiterate why I really think that I'm proud to co-sponsor this. It serves young children. And we know from research of very recently, even over the many years, that the better foundation you give children, the better they do as they continue through the school grades.
Speaker 0: Secondly, we're not just giving money to.
Speaker 5: Children to go to preschool. We are looking at what.
Speaker 1: Schools.
Speaker 5: They go to and we work with.
Speaker 0: Those schools and we rate those schools. So not only.
Speaker 5: Do we evaluate the child, but we're also evaluating and being sure that they go to well trained teachers and good.
Speaker 0: Schools.
Speaker 5: And then again.
Speaker 0: It saves money in our future when we have citizens that can get through high school and then.
Speaker 5: College and then jobs. They are the ones that contribute to our budgets. So I am a strong for those reasons and many that Councilwoman Brooks reiterated, I am a strong supporter of this program.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. Councilman Merritt.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I always resist the the the urging that government should be run like a business. But that doesn't mean that government shouldn't think like a business when we're spending the people's money and that the the expenditures we make should be thought of as investments, and investments should deliver a rate of return. I think it's rare that we have an opportunity to make an investment that delivers a higher rate of return than this one. The the the data is in the impact of preschool on the life chances of kids is enormous. The return on investment is not just on the order of percentages, but of multiples of the money that we put in. And the impact is particularly powerful on the most at risk kids. So not only are we improving their life chances and improving their ability to earn a good living in the future, we're also avoiding potential costs in the criminal justice system. So again, I don't want to think of government's business as a business, but think of it in a business frame of mind. We're making an investment here. This isn't this isn't about the children whom we should bring our hands about, and we need to help the children. This is an investment in the future, and you don't even have to care about kids. This is returning a serious return to the taxpayers in future earning earning potential mitigated costs in the criminal justice system. And I think I'm voting in favor of us making this excellent investment in our future. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Nevett. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sort of reiterating what others have said, but I just want to add my $0.03. This is a $0.03 on $100. It is, as they have said, the best expense for my and your taxes that we could ask for, particularly for the investment potential for this. In fact, we have a number of people who, with backgrounds in education on this council, Councilman Novick, Councilwoman Fox and myself and I think a few other teachers, Councilman Layman. So we know where of we speak about the importance of preschool education. So important that Councilman Councilwoman Fox didn't actually mention it tonight, just asked to take a look at her meeting. I totally support what her idea was. Preschool education is so important that we might want to think about starting a dialog and a discussion to change our public education mission from K-12 to P11. There is evidence that the senior year may not be as effective and efficient, and there is conversation throughout higher education and in K-12 education about the effectiveness of the senior year. But we do know the effectiveness of the preschool year and how important it is and what an interesting idea that we might put our resources into P11 instead of K 12. And I just had to call you let people know about your mention in committee. Councilwoman Potts. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'll be brief. I have no idea why society and. The city would not want its citizens educated from day one. That's why I'm supporting this.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Captain Shepard.
Speaker 0: I will be supporting this tonight. And I just want to share a personal story. I have a six and a half year old son. Our family would not meet the traditional definition of an at risk family. It's a two parent earning household. My husband holds a master's degree. My son hears well over a thousand, thousands and thousands of different vocabulary words on a daily basis at home. Yet despite that, at a very early age, my son was diagnosed with special needs and required therapy for the first several years of his life. He was not very good, didn't have very much vocabulary. You only had one word in 18 months. He did start receiving therapy very early on, and we did participate in this Denver preschool program. When Councilman Brooks was talking about how well this prepares children for kindergarten. I can personally attest to that because my son kind of floundered in the early childhood portion of his education. But since he was able to avail himself of this program, by the time he got to kindergarten, kindergarten, he really flourished. I mean, I just saw him blossom in the first few months, started battling like crazy, you know, and really, you know, really made tremendous, tremendous progress. And then so much so that towards the end of the first term, the teachers were saying that he had become a leader and a model for others in his classroom on various levels. So, you know, when we talk about the benefits of this program, I mean, it really has many benefits in many different situations. And for my son, he needed that extra special attention to get him to the place that he is today. And I was so glad in the last couple of weeks because he's been writing little stories and he's very excited to go back to school now. The words are not totally correct or in order or spelled right. But I mean, I'm just, you know, for a kid that had one word at 18 months old, I just could not be more more overjoyed about where we are today. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I won't repeat what all of my colleagues have already stated. I just want to add that 80% of a child's brain is developed in the first three years of life. And by being able to ensure that kids have the opportunity to be exposed to a larger vocabulary and other just being able to interrelate with other kids when they start school, they'll be so much better off. And we know that for kids who have been in some kind of preschool program prior to starting kindergarten, they have a 15,000 word advantage. So to know that kids who have not had that are starting school at a disadvantage and by being able to refer this to the voters, they get to decide. But I think we have seen tremendous, tremendous benefits from this program that has been in place for as many years as it has has been here. And I just want to say a special thank you to Sue Casey, who served on this city council and was somebody who had really done a lot of the research and worked with many of the providers out in the community to bring this forward the first time around. And to ensure that we were successful in getting it supported and funded by the taxpayers, I think we're going to see tremendous benefits from it. And my hope is that we continue to see improvements in our public education system so that that transition gets to move all the way across as they move to be graduates of our education system. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Mr. President, but I had to take this moment to just point out to folks who are sitting in the audience because, you know, I. I got on board with this because it's the right thing to do with this. Smart for a city, but then you get inspired by some folks. And so and and Joe Heinz, the legend of early childhood education in Denver. Can you just stand up and just say hello? Yeah, yeah. And then Jerry Grimes, who is also a legend in northeast Denver. And all three of my kids went through Hope Center. So thank you so much, Jerry, for all your hard work for pushing.
Speaker 3: Right. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, do we have any other questions or comments from members of council seen on Madam Secretary? Roll call.
Speaker 0: But no. Can each layman. Yes.
Speaker 1: Lopez Yes.
Speaker 0: NEVITT Hi. Ortega Hi, Rob Frye. Shepherd Sussman.
Speaker 2: BROOKS For sure.
Speaker 1: BROWN Hi.
Speaker 0: Mr. President. I would say sorry.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, please. Because the vote and the results.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes one Nay.
Speaker 3: Lebanon is one. A country of five. 74 has been ordered published. I'm sorry, can you t of the last two and it's 563 and 564 caught out by myself. We can do both of those in a block and this these two bills and I have a question I'm just giving a preface these two bills we had a
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance extending the existing .12 percent sales and use tax (the “Denver Preschool Tax”) through December 31, 2026 and increasing the rate to .15 percent, dedicating the revenue derived from the tax to fund the Denver Preschool Program, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state general election on November 4, 2014; and making certain changes to the Denver Preschool Program.
(GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Asks voters to reauthorize the Denver Preschool Program for 10 years, increase the sales and use tax supporting the program by .03 percent, and approve specified programmatic changes. The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-25-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-17-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08042014_14-0563
|
Speaker 3: Lebanon is one. A country of five. 74 has been ordered published. I'm sorry, can you t of the last two and it's 563 and 564 caught out by myself. We can do both of those in a block and this these two bills and I have a question I'm just giving a preface these two bills we had a robust conversation on last week in regards to this particular contract coming to the airport. And I started it off with a question to the airport about the diversity percent that we hit. So I will start that question off again. If anyone from the airport wants to come up and answer this question, what is the current active participation rate for this, either one of these two contracts? So see several airport people, whoever wants to come up and answer that one. Mr. President, Neil Maxfield, acting.
Speaker 1: Director of concessions for Denver International Airport. Can you say your.
Speaker 3: Question, please? Sure. So the question I led off with last week was what was the AC DB participation rate for both of these contracts? So the same question for this week as well.
Speaker 1: The goal for participation said for both these contracts was 40%.
Speaker 3: And the actual participation rate is.
Speaker 1: Currently 20% with a good faith effort of the remaining 20%.
Speaker 3: Okay. So that being the case, I like to call out 563 and 564 for a vote. Councilman Lopez, who would you mind putting both of those on the floor for a block?
Speaker 1: In a block? Yes, Mr. President. I move that both council bills 564 and five, 63, 12 and 14 be placed upon final consideration and do pass and block.
Speaker 3: All right. It's been moved in, second in. And I will just start off I won't repeat a lot of what I said last week. I just feel as if this opportunity is something we shouldn't pass up on. Participation rate is something we hold. I hold personally that we should achieve our goals when we have the opportunity. Seven year contract is a very long time and we should make every opportunity to achieve that goal. And I was I was under the impression and hopeful that we would be able to hit 40 over the course of this week. I know conversations were occurred, but it appears that that wasn't necessarily the case. So I will be voting against this contract. So those are my comments, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I have a question for Mr. Maxfield. Have you considered withdrawing this request and bringing it back to us after further discussions have been had? Why are we still voting if there's something that's not yet final?
Speaker 1: I think there and we can ask Mr. Martinez to come up and talk about the disputed position, but we go through an evaluation of the DSP, who goes through evaluation, activity, goals and every contract. This one was also evaluated. The goal was 40%. It was it got to a 20% rate and then was given in good faith efforts for the rest of it. Accord in accordance with dispose rules that that is okay. That's in compliance with the federal regulations. And so we move the bill forward. There are considerate, there are continued conversations happening between the concessionaires and their partners and they're here in the audience today and they can talk a little bit about those continue conversations, but they will continue just like the SBO does, to continue to get to that 40% goal over the next few weeks and months.
Speaker 0: I don't. Mr. President, I don't believe you answered my question. If conversations are continuing, why not withdraw the bill and bring it back to us when those conversations are complete? Is there why are you bringing it forward if the conversations are continuing? Why not wait three weeks and bring it back to us and say we're done? We know exactly what we've been able to accomplish and then bring it to us then.
Speaker 1: It's an interesting question. The the contract is in compliance with the process that we have in place. It was certified to a level of 20% participation and a good faith estimate. I understand that that's difficult for a council, men and women on the panel, but it is it is in compliance with the procedures that we currently have and we bring it forward just like any other contract for consideration.
Speaker 0: Okay. Out on my questions, but I would like to make a comment, which is that I'll listen to the debate again tonight, as I did last week. But when you tell me that there are good faith efforts and conversations that are still occurring, what it tells me is that the conversation isn't over. And regardless of whether it's checked every box in the form, that you may have a different answer in three weeks. And I'd like to see the final answer. So I'm likely to vote against this tonight. And, you know, I would rather not have done that. I would rather see the best last and final approach that this airport and this contractor could come to. So I will again listen to the debate. But it appears that we we may not have complete information. And I would refer to my comments from last week, which is that I get the idea that you have some concessionaires that are franchises and may have different arrangements. We should be thinking about that perhaps when we set goals, but once a goal is set, it is not an acceptable policy for the city. For us to expect some contractors to meet that goal and not bring them to this council for not meeting that goal or not until they meet that goal. And to allow others who happen to be affiliated with national multi-national franchises to come forward with goals. So I really do think that that is an inconsistency that doesn't work and it's not a good message for our locally owned businesses or our independent businesses without that kind of franchise relationship. So. So I will likely be voting no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just start by saying that I think Erin Morales did a very good job keeping me up to date, minute by minute of what was going on. I know we have some concerns. I know he I just wanted to let you know. Erin's, you did a good job. I know you're trying to count my vote. He was. And he, you know, really kept me informed about what was going on. Unfortunately, this is a this is an old song that keeps playing and playing playing. I was hopeful that they would meet 40% and there should not be an exception just because you're a corporation or you're a big boy, especially if you're Starbucks. I think we've had enough discussion throughout the years, seven years that I've been in council member. I think the first controversial or one of the first controversial things in what I was a part of in council was the ECB activity program. Right. And folks who were being left out of the program, folks that were being given the Thanksgiving table after Thanksgiving dinner, the child's table at Thanksgiving. And these are folks who are local businesses. These are local entrepreneurs. I don't think we should have two separate standard. Depending on where you're from, depending on who you represent, period. The rules are the rules. Just because you're a big boy doesn't mean that you can make your own rules or get an exemption. I think that it should come as a no question or a surprise that there's concern about the ECB Academy program. Just fix it. Let's just get right with the program. For seven years, we've said it's problematic. For seven years, we've heard concessionaires say, hey, something's not right here. I've set up plenty of tables where that's the case. Just fix it. Let's get right with the program. Does it matter who's coming to the table? Doesn't matter what job you're going to get next. You're serving the city and county of Denver, and that's what we expect. Those are values that we've set. We went through a whole program about contracting and minority with minorities, women, disadvantaged businesses. Guess what? There's a disparity. We spent a whole bunch of money to find out the obvious. Let's just implement the policy and require everybody to follow those rules. So I would like to vote yes on this, but I think that we need to send that message, and I think we need to stick to the plan. That's that's the will of the people of Denver. That program has value. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Neville.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. We are, I guess, kind of reprising some of the conversation from last week. But I do I mean, okay, we're we're going over well-trodden ground. But I do have to repeat, in deference to my colleague, the AC DB program at the airport as a federal program, goals are set by the federal government, and we are exceeding them. We are exceeding those goals. Our program is exceeding those goals. So when DIA comes to us with a contract that isn't meeting the particular goals set for that particular contract, but asserts and Debo asserts that a good faith effort was made and that continuing conversations will be made to reach that goal. We have a program that is exceeding the goals. I think they've earned a certain amount of trust. If that program were not exceeding the goals, I think we would be having a different conversation, I think would be entirely in the right to begin micro-managing their setting and achieving goals on particular contracts. But because the program itself is successful, I think they've earned a certain amount of latitude in making these choices. Now, when contractors come forward and they've actually exceeded the the the goal participation for ZBB, we're not wringing our hands about that. That's not, you know, a variation of the mean. Some will exceed. Some will fall short. But the program itself will be successful. And I think we are doing a disservice to this program that is successful by calling it into question and suggesting that because this contract isn't right on the money, that there's something profoundly wrong with the program. There's also one additional point I want to make, and that is that the CDB program on the federal program is very clear in that what we are to do is to set goals. If we set requirements, if we set quotas, we are in trouble. And what I'm hearing up here on this dias is we set those goals. And by God, if you don't meet those goals, you're not going to get the contract. That starts to sound like a requirement to me. And if we run that contract after contract, that becomes a quota. I don't want to go down that road. If the airport were falling short, if our program were falling short, I think we would be entirely in the right to be micromanaging contract by contract. But the program is successful. It's exceeding the goals set by the federal government. They've already said continuing conversations are being had to try to up the participation on this particular contract, given their performance so far. I'm confident that this will turn out well and that we will continue to have a program that exceeds our goals. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Okay. I was in here last week and I apologize, but I want to try and shed a little light on this. So technology is a business in five points, and they are owned by African-Americans and they have two other joint ventures at DIA. And and, you know, I want to call up Sheila as well, or your lawyer, if you want to come up and respond to a couple of questions. But they are in the process right now of developing 4 to 5 properties in the five points. And when they took on this role, they said, you know what? There's a lot going on. We've got a lot of development opportunities, so maybe we should go down to 20%. But they are not the not the prime they did. And so when there was an issue with that on council, they said they would go back up to 40% to to answer Councilwoman Canning's question and let me know, Vicki, if I'm wrong on this one. We are held by law. You have to hold them to that 40% regardless, regardless of, you know, what we say in here and what we believe. But you're you have to hold them to that 40%.
Speaker 5: Actually, it's like Councilman.
Speaker 6: Never.
Speaker 0: Explained it's a goal. And so the.
Speaker 6: Federal regs read that they must.
Speaker 0: Either meet their goal.
Speaker 5: At the full percentage or make a.
Speaker 6: Good faith effort to meet the goal.
Speaker 0: So we in essence, they are held to 40% by showing us what participation they have and how the rest of it garnered a good.
Speaker 6: Faith effort, how that's justified. They have to provide extensive documentation for the remaining percentage.
Speaker 0: Of the goal. They're getting the 20%.
Speaker 6: Participation, but they have shown us why they couldn't meet at the time. Be good.
Speaker 2: The Fogel okay and can I get a representative from CTA to to come. You guys can both come. And I want to give you the opportunity to respond to, I guess, some of the questions and some of the issues. Why? Why was it 20%? Are you are you are are you under the belief that you can meet the 40% goal that was stated?
Speaker 0: But first of all, I want to say I'm Sheila King, civil technology. This is Ronald Gomez. Ron Gomez with host HMS Host. All right. So can I turn it over to Ron?
Speaker 2: Yeah. We can hear from him, but I want to hear from you, too. I want to hear from civil technologies as well.
Speaker 0: But can you state the question again?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just that the 20% goal that that was that you originally went down to. Mm hmm. Why did you feel like you had to go down 20%? And why now are you at 40? And do you feel comfortable with that 40% goal that you will meet that goal?
Speaker 0: Well, I will we iterate what you said. We're doing a lot of development in the neighborhood. We are using the whole experience to to do the restaurants, things like that in the neighborhood. I also feel that the 40% I've been hearing from everybody, 40% is what it should be. It was set. And so I'm just trying to say, let's do it. Let's just do what needs to be done and move forward. So, yes, to answer your question. Yes, I'm ready.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Can I. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I'm just a vice president host. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch. Okay. That would be an apology to all lawyers. Oh. I oversee the national program for host. Our program has 115 partners like Sheila King. It generates a $350 million a year. I'm not the reigning expert on the DB program, but I'm getting close to the dangerous water you tread in when you set a goal and just achieve the goal at all costs. Someone use the word quota. That's kind of a dirty word. But you do invite you invite criticism from the federal government when you do these joint ventures, they have to comply not just in an equity investment. It's not just profit and loss. There's management control. There's decisions. There's control over the contract that have to be shared in proportion to the ownership. We have joint ventures all over the country. We have joint ventures with 40% participation. We have joint ventures with 45% participation. It's achievable. There are instances where it's difficult. The city of Denver, the Small Business Office, watches the program very closely. I commend them for that. We have submitted joint venture proposals at much lower levels and they've rejected it because you can't get to the management control that the federal regulations mandate. This isn't self-serving. There are people that want to blow this program up. There's a group called the Pacific Legal Foundation who is looking for airports that are overstepping the intent of the law so they can bring suit. They've done it. They're out there and they're watching. So SBO is to be commended for being the guardian of the program, how the 40% goal was set, I don't know. It's a difficult goal to achieve on to kiosk and coffee shops. If it was a gigantic casual dining restaurant and you could split responsibilities front of house, back of house. There's ways you could do it. It's very difficult to do a compliant joint venture that will not invite criticism from federal auditors. So in good faith, we looked at that as well as civil tech's financial situation at the time. We want to partner with them because there are that they don't they're not just in it to make a buck. They're trying to learn the redeveloping and underdeveloped neighborhood in the city and they're going to bring it back to life . And they needed the expertize that we could bring to them. And we're teaching them the business. We're teaching them how bartending works, how restaurants work, how coffee shops work, how the employees behave when you're not watching. These are all things that they hadn't learned yet in their careers, and we're very proud of the program we've put together at Host because we do better. We can and we will. In this instance, the 40% appropriately put together was difficult to hit. We can get to it, but it's going to take a little bit of time. And if that's the mandate of the council, will, of course, do it. But just understand be careful what you invite when you go down these paths.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I'll try not to repeat everything I said last week, but what I would like to know is how do you plan to meet that 40% goal? We were told last week that perhaps with suppliers we would attempt to see the 20% increase. So I'd like to know how, because I'm not sure that that gets us there because your purchases will vary from month to month. And I've been told by operators of airports as well as concessionaires that in order to meet goals with suppliers, we need to have close to 100% of the suppliers for any of the concessions where we're going to allow that flexibility for them to meet goals with suppliers. So I'd like to hear how you plan to do that.
Speaker 1: Sure. 40% via supply chain is impossible. It's flat out impossible that in a food and beverage environment, in a food and beverage environment, your goods and services are probably about 25, maybe 30% of your contract. If you went to 100%, you couldn't get there. This would be achieved through equity ownership and management participation. As civil tech brings a manager into the business and the manager gets up to speed and can be given a broader range of responsibilities. It would be that route that we would take to get to the 40%, but it would be through equity ownership and managed and cooperative management of the facility goods and services in a tightly controlled brand like a Starbucks where you buy the beans, the cups, the napkins, everything comes from from them. It's it's it's really a difficult. Can you achieve some? Sure. But you're talking fractions of a percent, maybe one or 2%. It has to come through equity, ownership and participation. And we're prepared to do that.
Speaker 6: And in equity ownership and participation is with this particular partner that you have or are you looking to bring in other partners.
Speaker 1: Know their economic situation has has improved their projects moving forward and getting funded their street side project is getting funded so they have the ability to raise the funds to participate on the equity side. So we're perfectly content to do that. But to try to have three people running one operation, I mean, that's imagine trying to run your household that way. It's it's very it's difficult enough with a mother and father arguing. And if you brought in a third party, it would be tough. So it's you have to have a rational business model. We're all in this to serve the customer, but we're all in this, too, to to run a good, profitable operation. And too many chiefs would spoil the coffee.
Speaker 6: So I just want to add, thank you for your comments that you've actually made. The case that I've been raising about why suppliers is not the way to go in trying to meet goals on these projects. I know that we have had other concessionaires who have come through and when they are awarded a bid and I know this is a little different because it's under the premium value program, but when the goals are set, they should be applied across the board consistently, whether it's a new bid or it's a renewal of a current contract under the PVC program. But those folks who go through the bid process are told that they have to commit to meet that goal, and that's very clearly stated to them. So, you know, their understanding is if we don't meet this goal, we don't get this contract. And and generally they're not brought forward until those goals are met. So this sort of gets back to the question that Councilwoman Kimmich asked. Why why not continue the conversation to ensure that goals are met? And I heard you loud and clear about the fact that there are people out there, there have been people out there trying to undermine any goal program that cities have had. We've had the city has been sued on occasions in the past, which has changed the laws and the rules of how these programs operate. But I think if we're setting the rules for one group, they need to be consistently applied because we can't change them as we go along . It creates too much of an unlevel playing field for those who are complying with every single tee that's been crossed and I that's been dotted on the contracts that they've signed. And when it appears as though we're allowing a different standard for corporate franchises who want to be in our airport, that doesn't feel right for the local people who are also having to put out huge capital investment for, you know, rebranding the space and all of that. And so I'm not comfortable moving this forward tonight, and I don't hear that there's a desire or an interest to hold it up to allow this to be worked out. And I don't know where the votes are on it, but that's where I'm at. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Okay, Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 0: I defer to my colleague, Councilman Lopez, who is a believer ahead of me.
Speaker 1: Oh, in a way. I didn't mean to speak.
Speaker 3: Your name is not on the comic at the moment.
Speaker 1: No, it's on my screen, but.
Speaker 3: Okay. I did not have it on my iPod.
Speaker 0: Great company. Thanks. I apologize for thinking out loud during this debate, but that's what I'm doing. Because every time I hear something, I'm learning and I'm processing. But I think that one thing I want to be really clear about is I have no interest in. Causing a situation that might lose this partnership. One of the things I don't want is only large TVs that are really easy to walk in with a ton of capital to be able to do these kinds of partnerships. And so, you know, the fact what I don't want to do is reject this concession contract and and then have this, you know, concessionaire say, well, let's just find someone who can walk in and easily do 40% and then lose an opportunity for a company that is just getting started and really does have a great reputation in the Five Points community and deserves this opportunity. So it's really difficult to try to anticipate what the unintended consequences might be of actions that we might take here on the dais tonight. I guess I, I kind of asked about it, but let me be even more pointed. I mean, as a council member in this body, I could make a motion to delay this vote until a date certain. And with the vote of my colleagues, that could occur if if we had their support. Is it the desire of the civil technologies? Would additional time be meaningful in changing this conversation, I guess is the question. And and that will I guess I would like to know from you whether or not three weeks additional time might change the conversation in terms of the commitment versus the. We're going to try to start here and get there. Thank you for the consideration. I think at this particular moment, I've had a lot of discussion and a lot of time to think about it. I'd like to go on and go with the 40% and we will work it out with host and how it all works out and and move forward. Yeah. Let me ask the mayor.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: The office of DSP. So what what needs to happen if they were to make this decision, if the parties were to get to this decision, how does it become official in terms of what the airport reports to us? So today they've said to us the commitment is 20% and X, Y, Z. So what has to happen for the airport to be able to say to us, well, the commitment is now 40. What are the processes or procedures.
Speaker 1: What we would need to see? Chris Martinez The Business Small Business Opportunity Office. Councilman Kenny Councilwoman Kenny's. What we would need to see is a new joint venture and how that 40% is being made up, where the capital is coming from and what will be the management or whatever types of agreement participation they will have in that 40%. We will have to see all that in a joint venture, a legal write up before we can have. We would have to review it and then make a decision to either to approve or not approve. As Mr. Gonzales said earlier, we have just approved some before. So we need to see of the the whole joint venture in its entirety to make that case for it. That's what we did on the 20%.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. If you'll indulge me one more question, please, which is host the representative from host, if you would like to respond without deciding now on the floor of a public meeting what you will or won't do. How much time would you need to be able to enter such an agreement as has been described? If if you were to go that route, what would be the time to.
Speaker 1: Within a three week window we can redraft a joint venture agreement. We've already talked with civil tech today and over the weekend, and we've moved this as fast as we can. What I wouldn't do is stand in front of you and say, I can do something that we can't. Within three weeks, we can certainly have the joint venture redrafted and submitted to the SBA for approval. And as long as I don't want to speak for Miss Padilla or Mr. Martinez, but as long as they can take a look at it fairly quickly and get back to us. I mean, I think we can certainly have this done in that three week window and have that in front of you and get to our 40% joint venture.
Speaker 0: Okay. With that in mind, I'm just I it's up to you, Mr. President. I'm ready to make a motion to delay consideration of this item to the date certain of August 25th. But I see we have other colleagues who have chimed in to speak, and so I can hold that motion, if you prefer that I do so , or I can make it now and second it. But then the discussion would be on the motions. Point of order.
Speaker 3: Right? Councilwoman Kennedy I and Kevin Moran, I to our attorneys were saying their hands. I want to get I believe that the.
Speaker 1: Motion has already been made in segment.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 1: So if you're looking to change something, you'd have to have a substitute motion and with an agreement by the second.
Speaker 3: Okay. Correct. So if there was a motion to postpone, there would need to be a move and a second. And I was going to first ask if Councilwoman Robb wanted to make her comments and. Before we got to that, unless Councilman Kenny said.
Speaker 0: We have I believe Councilman Robert also has a relevant point of order to my motion. So, yes, I just wanted to point out that 30 day review period ends on 18 and eight, 25 is a week after that. So I think it would require that this bill be killed and there be a substitute in. But someone needs to speak to that because I'm not an attorney.
Speaker 1: I believe there's a holdover provision in the agreement, so I don't think we have to kill it at this point in time. But that's why we have to go back and look at the at the provision just to double check that one.
Speaker 3: Write to me on the question council mirror. I will go to Councilman Ortega and then we'll we'll.
Speaker 6: So I have two questions. The first one is for Delia. What does this do to this space? Are both of these currently Starbucks locations? So it doesn't really change anything right now if we delay the schedule.
Speaker 3: You are correct, Councilman Ortega? That's correct.
Speaker 6: And basically, this would have to be a new a new contract to be filed anyway. So if council voted it down tonight, you would be bringing back a whole new agreement with the 40%. Correct. And if we could do that within that three week time frame, that may be the better way to go. Otherwise, what we're doing is just delaying this. That would be replaced with another bill anyway.
Speaker 1: So. Councilman or Councilman Ortega, just to verify your comment. I believe what will happen is we will have to read to look at the new joint venture present to present it to us at a 40% verify that if it was acceptable and then we would change the goal or the contract would then be written up with a 40% participation goal rather than a new contract.
Speaker 6: So that would be a new contract brought to council.
Speaker 1: I don't know the disease process. I just know what our process that would be is to with what.
Speaker 6: Changes what we're approving.
Speaker 1: That's correct. But in the contract you're approving today with the 20% goal does not preclude us from increasing the goal. Should we come up with the new joint venture agreement and a new level of participation? We can always increase that participation from them and and count it towards their goal as well.
Speaker 6: But the goal is at 20%.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 6: As we're being asked to approve is 20%. If we want 40%, then you should file a new ordinance.
Speaker 3: All right. We're going to we're going to make sure we get everyone's questions out. And then I saw the attorneys huddling. So maybe they'll have an answer about the 30 day window. And I'll come back to that. But let's first go through council members Nevett and then fourth. And if there are any more questions, we'll address the the idea for a possible motion Councilman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I as you know, I hate cutting off debate, so I'm just going to continue putting myself at the bottom of the list. But once everyone has had their say, I want to call the question. I don't I don't understand. I mean, we have we have a prime concessionaire who has clearly indicated an eagerness to work with a new ECD concessionaire and expand their role in the business. We have an airport whose program is exceeding the goals. We have an Office of Small Business Opportunity that's clearly committed to upping active participation. I'm left scratching my head why we would not approve this contract to move forward in the full knowledge that everybody is pulling on the same rope in the same direction to increase the ECD participation in this joint venture. So I'm just going to keep putting myself at the bottom of the list once everyone's had their say. I'm going to call the question. Okay.
Speaker 3: So you're not right now, Councilman Nevitt?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilman Merritt just said things beautifully. I just have one question, though, along that line for our department, Chris, maybe you're the person. Is this the first time that a contract has been rewritten with the goals? I mean, are we are we encountering something that has never, ever happened before?
Speaker 1: And if I if I believe your your question is, is this the first time that if it was rejected and a new contract is written with the new go?
Speaker 5: No, no.
Speaker 1: Is it after the contract is signed and then we raise the goal?
Speaker 5: No. I mean, we have a contract in front of us that was agreed to by everybody and seemed to be okay. And then we had questions on the floor, which is going to be asking us to essentially redo a business agreement. And I'm just trying to is this the only company that has ever had difficulty in reaching its original goals so that they were adjusted in a contract?
Speaker 1: To my knowledge, I believe is the only one like that. The way you're describing it.
Speaker 5: Okay. So this this really is the first time this has ever happened. This is ground setting precedent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is correct, to my knowledge. We have had contracts come before us, before council, before approved. And then we were we had the goal increased over time after the fact. I mean, at the gold participation I'm sorry, participation increased after the fact, but this isn't now.
Speaker 5: So what is.
Speaker 1: It? If, for instance, as and when we have concessionaires out there today and an opportunity arises where they could bring in more participation, they can bring in more participation, and we will we verify that participation and we will count that towards the participation for that particular concept that has happened in the past.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'm not asking my question. Well, but.
Speaker 1: I think what you're asking is, has there ever been an instance where a goal was set and the concessionaire couldn't make it? Yeah. Yes. And the contract went forward. Is that is that your question?
Speaker 5: Well, never, ever been one. I mean, this one has been rewritten to adjust to those realities. I'm gathering and I'm just wondering, is I mean, is this the first time in the whole world that's ever happened?
Speaker 6: Can I just ask a clarifying question? I know you're back then, but.
Speaker 3: Councilman Ortega, let's let's see if they do have an answer from Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 1: Let me see if I can do this other way. Conferring with the Wikipedia on this has been in with the CDB program since its inception at the IAEA. We have had contracts come before council and approved and then after they began their work, we have been able to increase participation and not have to redo the contract because they are meeting their current goal. At the same time, we have had contracts come before council with they go and the goal not achieved or not being met at the time presented to council. But they completed the good faith effort which by law the federal rules say if they complete the modified good faith, the good faith effort , we cannot deny them the contract based solely on them not achieving the goal. If they accomplish and met the good faith effort standards.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That's really I think that's my unease about all this. I seem to feel that we're going down a road that is very uncomfortable to me, and I would very much like to just go ahead and let them work with the good faith. It's very rare that I ever agree with anything the federal government says, but gee, they're happy. Why can't we be?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And I would say to my colleagues, if you don't like the federal law and then run for Congress and change it. I like the federal law in this case, which is pretty damn rare, but I do in this case. Sheila Right. Sheila, when you were standing there at the podium, you probably don't know it, but you look me in the eye and I believe what you say. That's all I need. I'm ready to vote on this. And don't forget, we have an obligation not just to serve the city and county of Denver, but to me, more importantly, to serve the 50 million people who come through that airport every year and they want your product. I wish we had ten more Starbucks out there. The two combined bring in a half a million dollars a year to take half a million dollars. We need more, not less. We need to pass this contract tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown. We are back to Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I wanted to make sure that we got this clear. You know, we talked about the three week delay, and everyone said they could do it. But the the the the entity that we are trying to increase, the entity that we are trying to to empower said we're ready to do it tonight. And I just wanted to make that clear that this business is ready to do it tonight. And so and I'd hope that that we can move forward with this. There are obviously some issues and I don't think it's with a be a CBD program, but I think it's premium value. But that's another whole nother conversation. There's some bigger issues that we need to start looking at as a council, and I don't think we need to hold small businesses who have a track record of over 20 years in the Five Points and throughout Denver and then the nation accountable for what's a larger problem and reality. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, before we go to councilman now, but I will just chime in real quickly and I appreciate the colleagues robust dialog on this. And I'm a huge fan of civil technologies. I know that I met with them last week. I met with them today. And I have got to meet the house today and I support what they do as well, which is I just find of of very interest that the companies that say they struggle to meet our requirements are the larger companies with huge, large economies of scale and the ability to connect with different entities that smaller businesses can't do that. And when I hear that is a challenge, I just I just find that very hard to digest when we have those requirements to smaller organizations, and yet they are able to achieve those results. So by me voting against this contract in no way means that I am against civil technology. I know the great work that they do. I'm a huge fan of those, but I just believe that in order to achieve those goals that the AI continues to set and be very successful, we need to have the scrutiny and if we continue to make those exceptions every time it becomes the norm because it's just a goal then. So it's not something that I have to achieve. It should be hard, but the reward from achieving those goals benefits everyone. And though I certainly hope that we can find a way to do that, and that is the reason that I will be voting against that. So I believe, Councilman Nevett, you were the last person to chime in, but it may not be any other question, so it might be time to vote. But if you want to, councilman, never. Do you have anything to add?
Speaker 1: I was going to call the question, but if it's unnecessary, we can just proceed to the vote.
Speaker 3: Well, it looks like we have no other questions or comments from members of council. So this is Catwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm a little confused. There's been discussion about a motion to extend to a date certain. What happened to that discussion.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman? Those were discussions. No motions were put out. So currently we have 563 and 564 on final consideration and do pass for a block.
Speaker 0: So but I thought I understood Councilwoman Keech saying that she would let the conversation continue and then revisit that. Is that what I understood or am I am I not hearing? Right.
Speaker 3: So I will let. Councilwoman, can you speak?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard, my my colleague, Councilwoman Robb, in her wisdom and experience notice that dates of the the 30 day period expiring before the date that I was going to postpone this to that according to the charter gives the administration some authority to move forward with things without our actions. So unfortunately I don't think my my motion would make a lot of sense or would work in the way that I intended. So that's why I didn't make it because just again, consulting with some of the procedural motions and little date limitations. So I'm prepared to vote. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Right. Do we have any other questions or comments? I can open that you're still on there. But did you? You were good. Okay, just remind everyone, this is 563 and 564 on a block for final consideration and do pass. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. I can eat. Lemon. Hi, Lopez.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Levitt. Hi, Ortega.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 0: Rob Shepherd? No. Sussman. I can eat. No. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: No. Councilwoman Ortega, you're voting five. Sorry. Manchester. Manchester, close to voting, announced the results of two.
Speaker 4: By just checking.
Speaker 0: Seven eyes, five knees.
Speaker 3: Geminis and five May five, 63 and 564. You are placed upon final consideration and you pass. Well, those were the last ones that are called out. So we are now ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution. Oh, wait a second. Yeah. Council resolution 584602603 585 591 and 601 to be adopted. Also, 2014.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Standard Food and Beverage Concession Space Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Host CTI DEN FB STA, LLC concerning a concession at Denver International Airport.
(BUSINESS, WORKFORCE & SUSTAINABILITY) Approves a seven-year concession agreement with Host CTI DEN FB STA, LLC (doing business as Starbucks (inline) at DIA) for a monthly guarantee of $20,880.08 (PLANE-201414720-00). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-18-14. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-16-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07282014_14-0605
|
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications?
Speaker 1: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Proclamations. We have two proclamations this evening, and we're going to start with Proclamation 605. Councilwoman Montero, will you please read Proclamation 605?
Speaker 5: I will. Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 605 is welcoming the 2014 Denver County Fair. A big batch of tradition with the side of now, it reads. Whereas the first Denver County Fair in over a century was held in 2011 and was such a huge success. It has become an annual event and the Fourth County Fair will be held at the Denver National Western Stock Show complex August 1st through third 2014. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair is a true reflection of all that makes Denver a special and unique place. The Fair promotes the vibrant diversity in our city and is a place where citizens can celebrate all things Denver. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair honors the fine traditions and values of America's county fairs, providing the time honored, friendly competition for that blue ribbon for the best garden produce, preserves, pies, handmade crafts, home brew, chickens, goats and more. And. Whereas, Denver's four H Club youth will be exhibiting their award winning creations and animals competing for a chance to win ribbons and awards, encouraging their successes. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair also brings the traditional county fair into the 21st century, there's a blue ribbon competition for composting vegan and gluten free creations, speed texting, poetry , new cannabis and hemp categories. Robots and homeopathic remedies. And. WHEREAS, activities this year include food trucks, daily live demonstrations, competitive eating contests, live local music and entertainment, local shopping in the heart of Denver at the pavilions. And. Whereas, Sunday is Viva Denver Day, it will celebrate our city's vibrant Latino community with themed events that celebrate this amazing cultural group. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair is a venue where people share history and traditions but also exchange new ideas and innovations in the heart of Denver, which is forging a reputation as a bustling creative capital for the 21st century, but which is also rediscovering the benefits of locally based, produced food, backyard farming and urban homesteading . And. Whereas, with Colorado's pioneering spirit for innovation, the Denver County Fair is quickly becoming a model for other fairs throughout the country. This year, the Fair launches its new state of art competition software, a new technology that would be licensed to eager county fairs nationwide after its inaugural in Denver. And. WHEREAS, the 2014 Denver County Fair generated approximately $1.5 million for the local economy, and it's estimated that the 2014 County Fair could increase that by 20%. Now, therefore, he proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby enthusiastically welcomes. The fourth annual Denver County Fair extends its best wishes for another spirited, successful year and encourage everyone to get out and enjoy the fair in section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the county, the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Tracy Will and Dana Kane, co-founders of the Denver, the County Fair.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. 605 The adopted.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 2: Has been moved, and secondly, comments from members of the council. Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. It's my honor to be able to present this proclamation tonight. The Denver County Fair actually has roots in Council District nine, and I'm so very, very proud of it. It's such a unique. And it's. Characteristic of the river north and all of the urban farming and the different culture that is coming together in the Denver community. I also am really excited about Viva Denver. That's this Sunday. It includes I really want to see this, a lucha libre Mexican wrestler. Is it a wrestling match? Or maybe they're just going to show up a match. Okay. And I saw papaya toss, bilayer, folklorico and a pinata bash. So that is a new addition to this year. This this particular county fair is also gaining more international attention. And I was telling my my colleague, Charlie Brown that The View and Jimmy Kimmel actually mentioned our our county fair on television. So we're getting more attention. I'm not really sure why they mentioned it, but maybe you'll share that with us. So anyway, I just want to encourage everyone to get over to the National Western Stock Show complex this Friday, Saturday and Sunday and come and enjoy the county fair with us. And I encourage all of my colleagues to please support this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Do we have any other comments from members of council? Councilwoman Sharon.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Herndon, I think Judy did a wonderful job on that. I just want to say quickly that the soap opera toss sounds like there might be a lot of sticky fingers. Hee hee. But I wanted to add my name to the list of co-sponsors for this wonderful proclamation. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilman Lopez. Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I am really excited about the Denver fair. I think it's it's cool where it's at. I went last time and it was it was pretty awesome because I think they had like a geek section for me. It was like a sci fi section, wasn't it? Their last time it was really, really cool. There's always something there for everybody in Denver. The fair is starting to become a big symbol of Denver, kind of a microcosm of Denver, everything in Denver and who we are. And I think the more we have this fair, the more we attract more people to celebrate who we are, whether it be in suburbia or something else. I never thought this would somebody on my life, but but it's pretty cool. I hope they have very good local grown honey for those up years. I got to say, though, speaking of honeys, this is probably the hottest Denver fair poster I've ever seen.
Speaker 4: Who made this?
Speaker 6: This is awesome. It's really cool. This is. This is who we are. I mean, this is somebody from could be from West Denver or the north side or it might even be from from your neck of the woods, councilman. So it's really cool. And this is exactly what Denver embodies. So I can't wait to to go over there. Mr. President, you're smiling at me way too much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. We have any other comments by members of council seen on Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 1: Montero I. Nevitt I. Ortega, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Brown. Hi, Fats. I can eat lemon lime Lopez.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Please for the vote. And now the result.
Speaker 1: 12 by.
Speaker 2: 12 is proclamation. 605 has been adopted. Councilman Monteiro, is there anyone you'd like to bring up to the podium to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President, I would like to bring up Tracy Whale and Dana Cane. I'll see you. Okay.
Speaker 4: I just wanna say thank you so much for giving us a proclamation that really appreciated. We've worked so hard over the past four years to really make this thing a go. And we've had some bumps and but we've gotten through them and we've persevered. And we're just so excited to be able to, you know, put on the 2000 2014 County Fair. We've got 12 stages this year. We have 220 events throughout the whole weekend, jam packed with all kinds of music and dancing and all kinds of good stuff painting, speed, knitting, best cheerleading, all kinds of labor competitions that people can also get involved with on the spot. We have the new iHeart Denver Pavilion, which is going to celebrate all things Denver. And we also have unicorn rides, which I don't I know there's no county fair that has unicorn rides. We also have inflatable land, carnival and Midway Games. Scooby Doo is coming. Councilman Monteiro mentioned the food truck roundup, which we're extending the hours for that, too. So we're really looking forward to really having a great event. Councilman Lopez coming in on our poster and that's that's designed by Marc PENNER Howell. He's designed all of our posters up until now. He also designed our 2015 poster, which I brought with me to give you guys a sneak peek. And no one's seen this. This is the first time. So don't tell anybody. We're also going to unveil the fair to.
Speaker 6: Oh, I see.
Speaker 4: But they're pretty settled. They're and so yes, there's you know, so, you know, like I said, we really want to be a reflection of Denver and who we are. And we're really beautifully diverse, cultural, you know, destination and the world is watching us, which is really amazing. So thank you so much. I really appreciate.
Speaker 2: It.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for taking.
Speaker 2: Thank you for asking. Thank you, Councilwoman Ontario, for that proclamation. Our next proclamation is proclamation 624. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 624?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation welcoming the 2014 Denver County Fair, a big batch of tradition with a side of NOW!
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07282014_14-0622
|
Speaker 2: It has been moved in seconded. Any other comments from members of Council Councilman Ortega? Did you have any other comments or is that it?
Speaker 8: No, that's a councilman fight.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I had thought a long time because I wanted to make comments about the settlement, but the settlement is not truly before us today. That's going to be coming up next week in the form of a resolution. Whether money sits in the contingency fund according to this supplemental or whether it sits in a claims fund is still sitting until we've decided to spend it. And so the fact that there may not be comments coming does not mean that there is unanimity in feeling on the council.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox, any other comments by members of the council? Scene nine. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 1: Raquel Ortega.
Speaker 8: Abstain.
Speaker 1: Rob I. Sheppard, I. Susman, i. Brown I. Fights. No. Can each. Lehman. Lopez. Monteiro. I. Never.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I come from the Susman. Your votes.
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please call the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes one day, one abstention.
Speaker 2: Tonight one nays, one abstention. Capital 622 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, could you please keep the next one? This council bill 560 by caught out by councilmembers Nevitt and Lopez. I'll start with Councilman Levitt to see why.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund.
(GOVERNMENT & SERVICES) Authorizes a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3.25 million from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund to address settlement claims. This bill was approved for filing by Councilwoman Kniech.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07282014_14-0560
|
Speaker 2: Tonight one nays, one abstention. Capital 622 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, could you please keep the next one? This council bill 560 by caught out by councilmembers Nevitt and Lopez. I'll start with Councilman Levitt to see why. What you want us to do with this up?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just. I think I have a question, but I may ask this to be pulled out for a vote as well.
Speaker 2: Well, let me just say, Councilman Lopez, did you have a question or comment or did you want that pulled out for.
Speaker 6: I just had comments, but I'll I'm curious as to what the councilman never wants to do.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman. Never go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Do you want to pull it out for a vote now or will you give me leave to do that?
Speaker 2: I will certainly give you latitude if you want to. Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So this this is the the agreement between the city and county and the symphony orchestra related to the use of the better concert hall. We had this in committee the other day. It seemed like a really great kind of win win where the symphony got their rental fee reduced to a dollar and we got tickets that we could give away. It seemed like a great, you know, a great partnership. But the the events over the weekend or at the end of the week seem to sort of gave the impression that this wasn't such a great partnership and that maybe we weren't on the same team. And I just kind of want to ask I don't know if there's anybody here from arts and venues who can answer any questions. I see Kent Rice here. I don't know if there's anybody else who can answer questions, sort of what's going on. I just sort of, you know, we left committee feeling like we're all on the same page doing a good thing, but it feels less like that now.
Speaker 7: Oh, you. Good evening. Members of Council Kent Rice here, executive director for Arts and Venues for the City. We are doing a good thing here. Okay. So the city needs to close that year concert hall to begin a renovation of some kind or another. This will occur in the second half of 2015. The symphony's season happens to bridge 14 and 15. Their season concludes in May of 2015, and because of a forced eviction, if you will, it seems like a fair thing for the city to accommodate the symphony in some way. They'll have to find another place to perform in their 1516 season. We came up with the idea to do to distribute tickets to the city's new Imagine 2020 cultural plan. So the agreement calls for $170,000 of symphony tickets to be distributed to people, presumably who would not normally be able to go to the symphony either because they're not familiar with it, can't afford it, or maybe it's not their cup of tea. And that is one of the pillars of the Imagine 2020 plan is to make arts and culture more accessible to people. The other hundred thousand dollars, and it's a $270,000 rent abatement thing. The other amount, the hundred thousand will acknowledge the city and county as a sponsor of the symphony season, along with the magic in 2020 and arts and venues. So I do endorse the idea of doing this for the symphony. I think it's a fair thing for them and I think it will be a very good thing for the people who receive the tickets.
Speaker 4: Great. So can you offer any, uh, can you shed any light on the. I know we've been talking about better concert hall. What the future of metric concert hall is that is the symphony not a party to those conversations. I mean, I'm just trying to unpack what seemed like a an act of hostility rather than one of partnership on the part of the symphony.
Speaker 7: So I won't editorialize or I'll say what's going on with with Bashir. We've halted what was an RFQ, a request for qualifications to renovate the hall. And we did that for a couple of reasons. One is that there wasn't adequate money to do a full renovation of Bashir. And those of you that have been around a while and most of you have may recall that when the Better Denver bond program was passed originally in 2007, it was for $60 million. Over time, that number became 16.8 for a renovation. Once we got the feedback from the architects about what we could do with that amount, it was quite scaled back. Quite scaled back, really. Renovation that didn't meet the needs. We thought of the symphony based on what we knew and what we expected to do for one of our venues in the arts complex. So we said, Wait a minute, let's have a conversation about the highest and best use of the $16.8 million, the highest and best use of that for concert hall and the grounds immediately surrounding it. So we began an informal sort of discussion with a number of people, including people who are resident in the arts complex, our cultural partners, city people and so forth, to say, what should we do with this money? And one of the ideas that was proposed was to renovate the whole area with a different kind of purpose altogether, to have a lot of different forms of entertainment being performed in an outdoor performance space and perhaps use the physical space where best you're currently resides. So that is one of the ideas that we considered it. It is the leading idea, but that's the leading idea among a group of people that have had a couple of conversations. The next path is to have some public convenings to get other people's opinions on this. That particular train of thought kind of got out there to the media a little bit ahead of itself. But it's the beginning of a process, not the end of the process. No final decision has been made other than that, we wanted to halt the train that was moving forward to redesign parts here with what we thought was an inadequate amount of money to do a good job.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. It still makes me a little uncomfortable to be consecrating a marriage when it feels like the bride is being dragged kicking and screaming to the altar. But you've offered me some reassurance here and that hopefully it'll all work out in the end.
Speaker 7: And I'm not sure I can respond to the marriage metaphor completely. But give me a second. I think this is a long engagement.
Speaker 4: And, you know, we have been living together for quite some time. Sometimes people don't have it before they marry.
Speaker 7: So, yes, a long engagement and then a happy one overall.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Before I go to Councilman Lopez, I saw Councilman Ortega chimed in. I just wanted to make sure that. Councilman Ortega, you just had a question and you it. Okay, perfect. Kathryn Lopez, go right ahead.
Speaker 6: I just got thrown off by that whole matter. I think it's more of a friends of benefits conversation. No, I'm just kidding. I, you know, I wondered what the purpose was calling this out. And I just wanted to make comments. You know, I know that folks have been hearing he said she said kind of stories and being on the board of the Colorado Symphony. I, I just want I wanted to make sure I'm able to vote. Mr. Bravo. Mr. Broadway. I just wanted to make sure being a board member on the Colorado Symphony that I can vote on this bill or if I would have to abstain.
Speaker 4: Yes, you can vote.
Speaker 6: Okay. And the second point was making sure that folks that I was able to express, you know, I haven't been on the board of that. Probably what I feel is a privilege to sit on the board of a great symphony orchestra and other musicians and other folks behind the music, so to speak, and understand where they're coming from, but also to represent the city's interests. In terms of my district and sitting on the city council knowing that we have two very great entities and I don't know a single person that has expressed to me there is such disdain that they would rather see the orchestra go somewhere else or the Colorado not have an orchestra or the orchestra not be in Denver or there not be a partnership. I think it's you know, for the longest time, I used to think that the orchestra was part of the city, that it was a city orchestra, and it came through city council. I couldn't see the separation of either or. And I you know, I just have a lot of faith in your office and a lot of your decision making, but also in our city and our willingness to make sure that an orchestra like the one that we have does not leave our city. And I'm sure, you know, there's probably a lot of different complex more a lot of different nuances, a lot of different complexities to such an agreement. But I think that the very soul of it, the very heart of it, I think that the you know, I'd rather see the symphony stay and I'd rather see, you know, us be able to accommodate such a great organization. And with that spirit moving forward, I think this this bill that's in front of us does that. It's a good faith agreement between the city and the Colorado Symphony Orchestra, figuring out where to play in 15 and 16 and figuring out, you know, the the lineup and how we move together and.
Speaker 4: See the ideas.
Speaker 6: Right. That's up to us. But I don't see this couple splitting up anytime soon. This is an I can't believe I'm going to say this on TV. This isn't a Ben and Jennifer kind of thing. Right. This isn't one of those quick little marriages end so quickly. I think this is long term and I can't wait to be there for the 50th anniversary one day. So I just wanted to make those comments. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Kathryn Lopez. Before I go to Councilman Ortega, I want to make sure your Councilwoman Shepherd, do you want to call this out or did you just have a question? A question? Just a question. Fantastic. Councilwoman tell you. Go right ahead.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Rice. Two questions. The first one just for the public. Can you remind us where the remainder of the 60,000 that was in the bond issue went?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'd be happy to. There was 60 million originally. 1 million was spent right away on design and planning for what was going to be a very, very large renovation, perhaps taking down the existing bachelor hall and building a new larger one. $2 million was used for repairs on the hall in the interim period because there were a number of things that needed to be addressed right away, including leaks in the roof and some new acoustical equipment. The other $57 million was redistributed by a vote of council in the fall of 12 to other cultural institutions in which the city has an ownership interest. So that includes Botanic Gardens, the art Museum, the DCP, Nature and Science and the zoo. Also the McNicholas building across the street got some funding. The Champ Street Bridge that connects the convention center into the back of Beecher got some funding and Red Rocks got some funding. So the 57 million was distributed among a lot of different cultural assets. Again, 16.8 is the amount that was set aside for Bettcher.
Speaker 8: Okay. And my next question is, can you just give us an idea of what the timing is that the public input process that you talked about?
Speaker 7: Another very good question. It's about 2 to 3 months and we're working on it now, but we hope to sort this out no later than the end of the year and preferably earlier.
Speaker 8: So as you schedule those public meetings, will you let us all know so we can help get the word out?
Speaker 7: Be happy to.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I will refrain from all relationship and marriage analogies because I know I'm just baring myself. But I'll be honest, I'm a little confused because I thought I understood one thing in the middle of last week, and then when the story hit the paper, I found it to be a bit some diverging. Directions there. So what I'm not clear on is we're asking the symphony to move out so we can make repairs to the building yet. On the other hand, I'm hearing that the number one thought out there is to potentially tear down the building. It doesn't make sense to ask them to move out to do repairs to a building that we're going to tear down or talk about tearing down. So if there is something that I am way off line here, I'd really like to get some clarification.
Speaker 7: I think it's a very fair question. Councilman Shepard, there were several factors in pausing the RFQ. One of them was that we had inadequate money to fund a proper renovation. The second one was, what was the actual future for this symphony in the hall? And the symphony had announced that due to some financial challenges, it was considering moving to a church in Capital Hill. I think that was reported in the media. You probably saw that. And another one was a concern that the symphony had about paying the city's existing rental rate going forward. And I don't mean for the immediate year prior to the beginning of the renovation, they had concerns about the rental rate for the very long term and the rental rate at city venues in the arts complex for the opera, the Bowery and the symphony are all comparable. So it was very difficult to imagine creating a new free rent deal or very low cost rent deal for one cultural organization over another. So the uncertainty of what the symphony wanted to do post renovation led the question to be called What are we spending the money in the right manner and for what purpose?
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 7: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Schaeffer, we have two of the council members chimed in. Robin Kenny. So Rob and Kenny, I want to see if either one of you two wanted to call it out. You just had kind of a question. All right. We'll start with Councilman Moran.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Kent, when we were reallocating the $60 million for other cultural projects, I thought the money that was going to remain for Bettcher was going to. I thought we knew we couldn't renovate the whole concert hall and we were going to do I can't say I was terribly excited about it, but do some renovations to the lobby. Do I have some facts confused there?
Speaker 7: You're generally on target, but not 100%. So we we had requested $27 million. We thought that was the minimum to do the infrastructure improvements that were required. So, you know, it was a significant amount of money. What we got was the 16.8. So almost $10 million less than what we thought was the minimum that the challenge and this was a big issue for us and I think for the symphony as well, is that most of the money would not be seen by patrons or the public. So more than 60% of the money would be infrastructure improvements that are required to bring the building up to code. Improve HPC correct some plumbing problems. The lobby could be fixed, but the interior of the hall, which is where people experience the music, where the performers do their job, that the musicians, it would all look exactly the same, which is sort of another public policy issue for us. How much money do we spend to improve something when the average person who walks in once they get past the lobby, which would be new, would say, Well, where's the rest of the renovation?
Speaker 1: So in a sense, the scope or the goal to do much more renovation has changed since we reallocated that fund dollars. Just with more thought.
Speaker 7: Is frankly that the scope was there all along. But when we got less money than we needed it, you're right. It directly reduced what we could possibly achieve.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Robb, before going to Councilman Jersey. Councilman Brown, did you want to call that out or did you just have a question or comment question? Councilwoman, you can go right ahead.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm going to have a question and a comment. First, the comment, which is that I have heard actually from constituents who've been following this whole thing unfolding, particularly, I was actually at a community meeting in Southwest District, Southwest Denver in Council District two and, you know, on a totally unrelated topic. But it came up and I feel like what I hear from residents is they feel like it's the city's responsibility to make sure that we keep a symphony in Denver and that it's part of our cultural family. And so I don't hear from them that that there's a certain way that has to occur. But I certainly think that I hear that sentiment from constituents, and I, I agree with that sentiment, that I really do think that this is an important partnership. And, you know, as Councilman Brown raised some questions that, you know, were from 60 Minutes, I think that we have to understand that there may be a need for a city role for that to occur. And so I think that this is a good contract in the short term because what it does is it financially makes it possible for the symphony to stay for the next year. So I based on the feedback I've gotten from constituents that they want us to step up and they want this institution to be a part of Denver, not a suburb, not another part of the metro area, but a Denver piece. It seems to me that I need to approve this agreement today. So that's the the comment, I guess the the concern or the question is whether or not you would be willing we as a city are going to be willing to, for example, extend them for a year. If this is unresolved and we're not yet making repairs. I don't want us to be blindly following a schedule that, to Councilwoman Shepard's question doesn't make sense because the renovations aren't ready because we've slowed down the process of contracting or aren't going to happen. And so I just I want to get some clarification from you that this agreement we're entering into today could change to the benefit of the symphony, should it occur, that we don't, in fact, need them to move out when we thought so too.
Speaker 7: Common comments. Councilwoman Canete. First, of course, I think everyone wants the symphony to stay in the city and county and frankly to perform at the arts complex. Whether that can happen is partially the responsibility of the city, but primarily the responsibility of the symphony, because the city supports many, many cultural organizations, small and large. And it would be, I think, fairly tough for the city to undertake direct financial support for all of the needy cultural organizations in the city. Regarding your second point, of course, if something changes between now and next spring or even before, that indicates that we can't keep the schedule or there's no renovation plan that makes sense. We would, of course, do whatever we could to make sure that that they were still resident because we like having them in the arts complex. I mean, they're one of our major partners in the arts complex.
Speaker 1: And my last question, Mr. President, which is I don't want to debate right now whether we should tear down Bettcher and create an outdoor facility. But we have engaged in a major facilities analysis in partnership with Visit Denver and the National Western Stock Show. Has the idea that we're considering been studied as part of that analysis?
Speaker 7: Absolutely not. That was not even contemplated. That had to do with the Colorado Convention Center and where was it going over the next 20 to 30 years and much more importantly, the national western and the whole zone and the and DCC.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was my understanding though that concert venues was a significant question whether or not the National Western needed, whether there was a market for additional concert venues. And so I would just say as a comment that to the extent that, you know, you are engaging this council in that public process over the next few months, what we need in the metro area in terms of concert space has to be a relevant question that's considered before that road is pursued.
Speaker 7: So I agree about the need to study it. I think what's very unfortunate and it's kind of has to do with engagement being rocky from time to time. The idea about the outdoor performance space was not the main idea. It was whether or not we're using the money properly for the. Taxpayers. That was the key question. But the leading edge of that got reported as an amphitheater. So I understand why it's a topic of discussion.
Speaker 1: One last question, Mr. President. Who was the decision maker that cut the 27 million to 16?
Speaker 7: That would be you. I mean. Well, I think.
Speaker 1: It was presented to us as a recommendation. Of whom, though.
Speaker 7: Oh, there was. I'm sorry. There was a panel.
Speaker 1: There was a selection committee. We were as a whole.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman Lehman was on the committee, and there were, I think, someone from public works, someone from a construction company, someone from the band Sound Foundation, or probably half a dozen people that reviewed all the proposals. And there were a lot of them. And then they made the recommendation. You're right, you guys. Just to prove their recommendation. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman, can this Councilman Brown can't.
Speaker 0: There's been a lot of talk about bond money, 16.8 million or whatever. But there was also, if I recall.
Speaker 4: A key role for private.
Speaker 0: Fundraising in this effort. Now, obviously.
Speaker 4: This puts a huge.
Speaker 0: Cloud over potential fund raising and the uncertainty that comes with that. Could you bring us up to date on what has been raised? Where is the money? And is there a chance that some people might, for example, want their money back if this doesn't work out?
Speaker 7: I believe you're referring to the original contract, Councilman Brown, between the symphony and the city to raise $30 million. Is that correct? Yes. So when the 60 million was approved in 2007, the original vision for a renovation, and again, it was a huge, very, very big renovation, had a price tag between 90 and 100 million. So the symphony entered into a contract with the city to raise $30 million. So a 50% match against the city's 60 million in bond funding. In the ensuing five years, the city with the symphony, rather, was not able to raise the money. And so they came to our agency and asked if the contract could be canceled because they knew that there there was not a path forward to raise that amount of capital to match the city's funds, which is what led to the redistribution of the bond money.
Speaker 4: Do you know how much was raised?
Speaker 7: I don't know. I don't know that they have I think they had some commitments, but I don't know how much that was or what the status of that money is today.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 7: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Do we have. I see no other questions or comments. I'll just wait a moment. All right. See? And none, ma'am. Secretary, since that was not called out, we'll move on to the next one, which was five, six, three and 564, called out by myself that deal with two concession agreements for the airport. And I have a question. And based off of the answer, we will determine if I call it out or not. So I see Aaron in the back. Could you just come on up to the podium, Aaron? And my question deals with both of these agreements for Starbuck concessionaires via the activity requirements. What were the goals and where did these two finally end up?
Speaker 4: So the goals for East KDB goals were 40% and their proved participation was 20%. That 20% was achieved through a joint venture with Civil Technologies, which is an AC Eagle or HDB company, and it was also approved through a good faith effort for the remainder. So they're going to try and new suppliers to reach the rest of that goal because it is a franchise. They have certain restrictions of who they can purchase from, but they are making a good faith effort to purchase from local suppliers that are HDB approved.
Speaker 2: And for the record, could you introduce yourself and say your title?
Speaker 4: My name is Aaron Barraza and right now I'm doing the government affairs for DIA.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Okay, so based off of that answer, I would like to call both of these out in the block. And Councilman Ortega, could you please call and put council bills 563 and 564 to be ordered published in a block?
Speaker 8: Okay. And then I'll make one come and talk to you because I move the council bills 563 and 564, the place ordered published in a block.
Speaker 2: It has been moved in second and I will start with the comments. And so this is about we've had this conversation before with airport has had tremendous success, which we are grateful for. But I think one of the reasons for our success. Just deal with the ability to bring in diversity to these concessions contracts. And these concession contracts are seven years old, a seven year contract, and we're missing the boat when it comes to diversity. We have requirements for every concession that comes forward. As we just heard, the requirements were for 40%. And of these both of these contracts didn't meet that goal halfway there. And I just think that as a city, we either value diversity were denied. We had a contract come before us previously that was nowhere near the goal at 1%, and I was bothered by that and voted against it. And I think if we value diversity, we should put our foot down and say there's a way that you should be able to do this because we either have a standard or we do not if we continue to make exceptions, I don't think that's fair to those that have to work diligently to find minority women owned partners in that capacity. So for these two contracts, I will be voting no. And hopefully we can go back to this company and say you should be able to find a way to be able to attain that goal of 40%, because I don't believe we would set a goal for 40% if we didn't realistically think that they could achieve it. So. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. We had a previous DIA contract that had talked about meeting the goals with suppliers and that got pulled back into law. Now that we've got yet another contract coming forward that is intended to meet the goals with suppliers, I think this is a slippery slope for the CIA to be going down because, you know, I was at an iMac conference not this year but year before and had an opportunity to meet and talk with lots of different operators of airports as well as some concessionaires. And at the time they were aware that this particular contract was moving forward to the city and they knew I was on the city council and they bent my ear about the fact that if we were going to allow concessions to be able to meet goals with suppliers, we need to have close to 100% of the suppliers being minority. And it's because the purchase of the various supplies varies. It ebbs and flows based on what the need is and and how much of that product is being consumed, whether it's, you know, your equipment purchases to your supplies. It it just does not make sense to think that we're going to meet a 20% goal with suppliers. So for those reasons, I'm not going to be voting for these two contracts tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. First, a couple questions since I don't serve on this committee doing it, Aaron. First of all, what exactly is this concession space going to be?
Speaker 4: So both of these are Starbucks. They're already existing. They're part of the premium value concessions program. One is a kiosk and one's in line. And they've both been tremendously successful. They they are joint ventures with the minority owned business. That's how they reach the 20% for the HDB eagle. Like I said before, they do have restrictions because they are a franchise of who they can purchase from in which materials they can purchase.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I. Starbucks was good. That's what I needed. Okay. And so second, there are renewal. Yes. They're renewals. And third, Civil Technologies is an engineering and design firm. What is their role as the minority partner?
Speaker 4: They're a part owner. They're 20% owner in this venture.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I guess I'm a little torn on this one because I think that when you're at a certain size of an operation, it's difficult to parcel out a portion for a partner of any kind, minority or otherwise. And so, you know, it seems to me like questionable if if you're in a situation where it's kind of a sole proprietorship or a, you know, an operation, I don't know about carving up ownership for the where there's no clear role. For example, I mean I don't know what a 20% owner in a Starbucks without expertize in food and beverage is going to be doing. And so to me, that's questionable in and of itself. I mean, that's a it's a great firm and I'm very familiar with their work on transportation and and development. But I guess I need to get educated on what the role they're going to play here is. But but I also agree with Councilman Herndon that when you set standards, it's important to keep them. I often feel like we're a little blind with our ownership requirements. There are really a lot of ways to build opportunity for minority communities in terms of employment and in terms of training and other things. But to the extent that I do support this policy, I guess I'm going to continue to listen to the debate a little bit. But I think it is troubling to set goals and not meet them. It's it's not a good practice. And I agree. I joined Councilman Herndon in voting against some of the McDonald's or I don't remember what all was in that package of franchises. But but I am going to listen to the rest of the debate and may need to to vote against this as well.
Speaker 4: You know, also, in addition to this agreement, part of it is that they have to they have to invest a large capital investment to help upgrade the look of the kiosk and to look at the other end line. And during those, they can also use subcontract or contractors and subcontractors that are that are actually qualified as well. And these two Starbucks locations are actually part of their revenues. Help to achieve an AC DB revenue of $1.9 million for for this group of projects. So there was a substantial investment or revenue for these companies as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Catherine Brown.
Speaker 4: Aaron, I don't think you were in fact, I know you were not here, but for some.
Speaker 0: Reason we had we went for years. You guys remember this without a Starbucks at the area. And I recall because I don't know if you remember this, but it was up there. And the terms of the number one and number two complaints that Denver did not the I did not have a Starbucks. You guys remember that. So what do they bring in monetarily today? And then secondly, what happens.
Speaker 4: So if these contracts are not approved tonight? So in 2013, the inline store day received $312,000 in rent. And for the kiosk store day, they received $180,000 in rent. And the kiosk for Starbucks gave them $1.2 million in sales, and the end line gave them $2.2 million in sales. So they're very successful franchise over idea and very popular, as you said, from by the travelers.
Speaker 0: What happens if these bills do not pass?
Speaker 4: I'm not entirely sure. I'm going to have to. I guess we're going to if these don't pass, I guess we're going to go back to the drawing board. And I don't entirely know that right now.
Speaker 0: Because this is a big deal.
Speaker 4: It's a very big deal. And it's a lot of rent going to day, 312,000 for one of them, under $80,000 for the other.
Speaker 0: You look at half a million.
Speaker 2: Council members and I would say we ask that question of the last time McDonald's. What would happen if those bills were defeated? And the answer that was given, they would go back to the concessionaire and create a new agreement that they would bring to council. That was the answer that was given last time. And they did that a pass that they did not have to. Okay.
Speaker 0: I thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I'm a little.
Speaker 0: Concerned.
Speaker 4: I just put it that way. I say concerned.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilman.
Speaker 1: You're going to have to help me understand, we have a policy or regulatory package at the airport by which we do the premium and concessions. And they have certain rules.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: And then we have our requirements for the.
Speaker 4: DBE.
Speaker 1: SB program. So tell me how those two overlap. Are they in conflict with each other or does the premium concession take priority? What concerns me is I want to be sure that we're playing by the rules we put out there. If the rules are unfair, we need to change the rules. But I want to be sure we're playing by the rules that have been our policies and practices and not making an exception for Starbucks or for McDonald's in terms of the way those two programs work together.
Speaker 4: All right. So DIA did collaborate with the Concessionaire partners to develop and implement the Premium Value Concessionaire program. It is run by a third party contractor and it rewards the top performing concessionaires with new agreements. They don't have to go back to the RFP process. The performance measures include contract compliance, sales and customer service. I do not know if there's a conflict when it comes to incorporating the activity goals into that. I think it's primarily, mostly their performance at the airport when it comes to customer service and sales.
Speaker 1: And so so obviously we're having to make a tough choice between our desire to have a premium concessionaire there in our values for SB DB. So what I would say is, and this may be the reason that Councilman Herndon keeps calling these out, we got to reconcile those two programs. And when you can't answer that, we do have a problem.
Speaker 4: Well, like I said, the performance measures, our contract compliance sales and customer service. And because they are part of this premium value concessionaire program and they were a top achiever, they did achieve all of those measures. So they are very high performers at the air. I think the AC TB is a separate item.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega, I'm going to allow Councilman Neville to go since he hasn't chimed in yet. Councilman, never. Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, I think I brought this up. The last time we struggled over this issue. And I get I get confused that the activity program is not is not our program. It's federal program. Yeah, I'm right about that, am I not? And so the the the application of and it's a it's a federal program that asks us to meet goals as an airport with respect to active participation in airport concession economy. And in that federal program, we have exceeded the federal goals for active participation in the concessions economy out of DIA. So. So we're not meeting. We're exceeding the goals of the federal program. Am I right about that? You are right. Well, just to clarify, the ACW goals are set by the Division of Small Business Opportunity. And actually 2013 was an all time de record for meeting our goals. They were up 5.4. 5% last year. So we are exceeding those goals. There was $115 million in activity revenue. Right. So I'm committed to the overall KDB participation. The airport's 39%. Right. So I'm committed to the activity program. It's vital and it's important. I just I'm I'm scratching my head a little bit about how much hand-wringing we should do over one particular contract or another. In fact, tell me if I'm right about this, that the establishment of specific goals for specific concessions is a an embellishment on the federal program that we elect to do. That's not part of the federal program, federal programs about the airport as a whole. We elect to establish goals for individual concession contracts. That's us, right? Because they do vary. Got it. Okay. I guess I just I just wanted to clarify that, to make sure I understood that we were what we were talking about. If it's a federal program, goals are set high. We exceed them. I feel pretty good about that. Yeah, we should hold our concessionaires accountable for trying to reach those goals. But as long as we're exceeding the federal goals, it seems a little funny that we would spend a lot of time wringing our hands over publishing this bill . Right. And he's making a good, strong effort. And it's I mean, last year was an all time record for us. Got it, sir. Thank you. Efforts are being made and there are a lot of new, you know, Elway's route, Steve snap and dogs. There are there's a strong local presence at the airport, too.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Debbie. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I think the real issue here is are we serious about setting goals and asking folks to meet the goals that we set as they're set on each of the projects? And on this one, you're saying half of the goal was met, 20%. And part of that goal is going to be met with suppliers. And I'm arguing that we cannot meet that goal on a consistent basis by utilizing suppliers, because with all of the other concessions across the city, we we ask them to meet that goal on a consistent basis. And when you look at the fact that the supply need ebbs and flows, I don't believe we're going to meet that goal on a consistent basis. And that's why I'm not going to be supporting it. I think there's a need for Starbucks. Every DIA, every major airport has Starbucks. You know, people look for them in airports. But I think the issue is that I don't believe we're going to be able to meet the goals on this contract, these two contracts, by utilizing by allowing them to meet them with suppliers.
Speaker 4: I'd also like to point out that there are other examples where other concessionaires did meet that goal with a supplier agreement. For example, Hades has 25% of their ACW goal, was met with the supplier. Give me the city park food so it is possible.
Speaker 8: But do they still have a can? Do they have a concession partner that.
Speaker 4: I don't know that detail. But I do know I mean, with that being said, Starbucks.
Speaker 8: Would like.
Speaker 4: To arrange that same percentage. So if they can reach that same percentage that then they can actually see that. AC TB goal.
Speaker 8: I argue that we cannot meet goals with suppliers unless the goal was set way up here. That ensures that on a consistent basis that the goal is being met.
Speaker 4: I understand.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Kathleen Kennedy, Councilwoman Foster, and have the opportunity to chime in. Do you mind if I go with our first couple of five?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I had rung in earlier and then withdrawn my request because Councilwoman Robb was hitting very much the concerns that I had. It seems to me that we have laid out a premium value program that has told people if you do certain things and this goal aspect is not part of that, at least it wasn't written down. If you do what we have identified as the criteria, then we will renew you. And I don't see that we should be changing the rules in the middle of a game. If indeed you want to go back and reassess your premium value program and have that as one of the criteria that where everybody agreed to that. That would be something that I am very reluctant to say. Now we have a particular contract coming forward that has met the requirements they thought they were supposed to meet. And suddenly we have a different rule for the game. I don't feel comfortable doing that and so do feel comfortable approving these contracts at this time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman five Councilman, can you.
Speaker 1: This is actually a really helpful floor debate, and I'm glad that we're having it because I've learned a lot from listening to my colleagues. So I think one question, which is did they meet the previous goal that they committed to in their prior contract?
Speaker 4: That that was before I was here. I don't know the answer to that, but.
Speaker 1: If you can get that answer, because I think one of the themes that I'm I think what's perhaps less important, I'm not sure why we would set a new, i.e., arbitrary goal on a renewing concessionaire and where that goal setting came from. So that's a question that has emerged here. So is it ever realistic for a concessionaire who's a franchise to get 40%? It may not be. Why are we setting it? It's not like this is an open space up forbid, you know. So that's confusing. But what is important is that people meet the contractual commitments they've committed to. And so I think that if if they said we could do 20, then they should be measured by being able to do 20. And to Councilman Leavitt's point, I have always been supportive of some flexibility in programs like this to be achieved over an entire enterprise where some might overperform and some might underperform. So I think I'm getting more comfortable listening to this debate, but so I'm going to vote for this tonight. But I do want to know whether they met the goal that they had in their prior contract, whatever that goal may have been. Absolutely. I think, secondly, we need some clarity and how goal setting is happening, especially for spaces that are already occupied and or our franchises. And then I think the third issue, which is the sticky one, you've named some outstanding businesses, Elway's, Steve, Snap and dogs. But if they have an unfair obligation compared to their national branded counterparts, that's problematic for me. I don't want to hear that. The answer is McDonald's and Starbucks get off and Steve snap and dogs and always don't. So that certainly still lingers. But I think I can get there pending some information in the interim.
Speaker 2: So so thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. I'm going to chime in for a comment and make sure that I understand this right now and correct me. So premium vrai, the premium value program. So if you are selected as one of the winners, you get to do direct negotiations with the airport without having to have your that entity, that concession go out to RFP. Correct. But that in no way changes the fact that every concession contract has to have an activity requirement. Correct? Correct. And those are set by the FBO division, Small Business Opportunity, which is done right here within the city and county of Denver through. So I don't believe and thank you for making sure I got that right. And I say this because I would and Chris Martinez, I don't see him in the audience because this would be a great opportunity for him to come and speak to this. So he has come to businesses before and talked about how those had been set up. And so I believe that if we set up a percent of 40%, there's an understanding that that should be able to be attained. It would it would seem naive to do something so high and not expect him to get that. So I'm of the belief that if SBO can assign a number, they should be able to get that. And to Councilman Neville's point, absolutely, we hit the goal very well in 2013. And I think it's because we've had some scrutiny to make sure that each individual concession contract is doing this. We shouldn't have the have other people pull up the slack, especially the slack is coming from large organizations, large companies, which I believe would be easier for them to be able to find a partner. So I, I understand and appreciate and support what the airport does. But in this entity, we are starting to have this once again, too many opportunities of making exceptions. And then I don't think we're going to be as successful as we were previously. Councilman or take I'm go to Councilman Brown and then I'll come back to you. Is that okay? Yes, Councilman Brown.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I must confess that.
Speaker 0: I'm a little surprised by this tonight. I didn't know it was coming. And I hope that we can pass this out tonight on first reading and give the representatives from hosts an opportunity to meet with each and every one of us to lay out their case one way or the other. But I'll tell you, I don't want to kick Starbucks out a day. And to do that tonight, I think, would be a mistake. And I think this needs more discussion, whether we delay the bill or whatever you want to do. The President. But I'm a little concerned here, frankly.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I will go to Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: So I just want to add that I think this brings some of the procedural steps of the premium value program into question, because what we're talking about is basically repurposing the space of two existing locations that will now have new concepts and the two new concepts or Starbucks at those two locations.
Speaker 4: And so there are already existing Starbucks there.
Speaker 5: These are.
Speaker 8: Existing I thought this was repurposed so that those spaces.
Speaker 4: These two Starbucks are already existing. And they did meet the the contract compliance and sales and customer service from the PBC. So that's why they're just being renewed.
Speaker 8: Okay. So that that makes this even more important.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 8: And glaring to the point that Councilwoman Kinney just made, that we we make our local concessionaires who are going through the application process go through extreme expense and scrutiny. You know, they have to be able to have the cash flow to be able to make the capital investment and be able to pay their staff and all of that stuff. And so if we're we're not giving them a pass, but yet when we want large corporations to come in and we're giving them a pass, it it seems like an unfair playing field. And so those are some of the concerns and issues that I have. And I've been spending some time trying to really understand the matrix of how the decisions are being made in the premium value program. And I really believe that it's intended to work hand in glove with the ECD program. But when these when and particularly when the spaces are being repurposed, it it makes sense that we create more of that level playing field in the way that we we treat the applications, the applicants. So that's it. I'm done.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to weigh in weigh in on this as well. I just want to say that. The interest should resonate with you and the rest of the RIAA to understand that it shouldn't be this hard to come before us and have this kind of debate on the floor. I'm not particularly pointing at you. You're the messenger. But what I want to say is that we care about those particular goals, and I care about you being able to go back to the concessionaires and show them, you know, this debate so that they can understand that what we're talking about is very, very serious. We understand. I'll speak for myself. I understand the dollars that you're talking about. But what I want you to understand is what I value in terms of the goals and that premium, the premium, whatever category is that. I just think that generally speaking, without going through all the details in the PowerPoint that there should be a value in and doing better and understanding what many of us value. And so I am going to vote no tonight unless there's something else on the floor that will delay. The votes may go through, but that even if they do, I wouldn't consider that a victory. I would just consider that you got through one set of votes because it shouldn't be this difficult. So I will just wait and hear the rest of the debate and see what's going to happen. But I'll be a no.
Speaker 4: And I also did want to add that the 20% is already met and the with the rest of it, they can actually see that DSP able go ac TB Eagle, I'm sorry, with the suppliers. So it's still possible for them to not only meet but exceed that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Montero. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I told my colleague, Councilman Councilman Brandon, he spoke this night, but I did learn a lot. I think you personally do a very good job. I represent the airport and I don't think this is a reflection on you. I know you're just the messenger here, but I know that these goals are very important. These programs are very important and they can't be undermined. And the second we undermine them, we undermine the whole purpose and the spirit of what we stand for. Right. And that's making sure that we spread opportunity. And Denver International Airport is the airport in the country. When you're looking for opportunity, it is very successful. People who had a small business in the airport in the eighties is now have now grown to become national players. That's how that's that's how successful and that's how important opportunity is at the airport. You have so many people who would do everything they can just to get a space, just to get a kiosk at the airport. It's highly competitive and it also places a lot of people at a disadvantage. And that's where we come in and that's why these rules exist. We cannot undermine that disadvantage or not undermine those goals and perpetuate that disadvantage. So, you know, unfortunately, I am going to be support I am going to be voting no on this because I think it's important enough of a message to send back home.
Speaker 2: So thank you. Councilman Lopez, do we have any other comments from members of council? All right. Scene nine. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 1: Rocco Ortega, the Rob Shepherd past Susman Brown. I but I can eat I. Fleeman II. Lopez. No. Monteiro. No. Never. I shepherd. No. Mr. President?
Speaker 2: No. All right. Council members Brown and Sheppard, your votes are hanging. Fire. Councilman Sheppard. There we go. Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results.
Speaker 1: Seven Eyes, five face.
Speaker 2: Seven eyes, five mask. 560 3564 are published in a block. Madam Secretary, please tee up the next one. And this is Council Bill 535 on final hearing. I call this out. And Madam Secretary, I'm going to pull that so we can just have that as part of the block piece. All right. Did I make sure I got all of them seen? No, we're good. In all of the bills for introduction are order published and we are now ready for the block votes. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Second Amendment to User Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Symphony Orchestra Association, relating to the use of Boettcher Concert Hall.
(BUSINESS, WORKFORCE & SUSTAINABILITY) Amends a lease agreement with the Colorado Symphony Orchestra Association for Boettcher Concert Hall to extend it to 05-31-2015 and reduce the rental fee to $1 per year effective July 1, 2014 (RC55024 (2)). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-18-14. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-16-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07212014_14-0535
|
Speaker 5: And I agree with Judge Mancusi. I think there are some concerns with our current process in our contract. I'm not quite I'm not entirely sold on if this is the right direction to go. And I'm doing some research. I've researched other municipalities that have Denver County courts for public defenders, and I'm still doing some research. So I'm I'm making this comment versus calling it out. And I would encourage my colleagues to take a look as well, because I don't think the cost estimate is as as good as it is going to be. And I think that we might just need to tweak our current process versus bringing it entirely in-house. But I do thank you for your time and sitting down with me and I have a feeling we'll be reaching out and connecting with you as well this week. So that those are my comments on Council Bill 535. And, Councilman Brooks, you have a comment? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. This bill came through a health and safety committee, which I chair and had an extensive conversation with Judge Mancusi. And in conversation with the committee, what this bill does is brings the public defender in-house. Currently, we contract and outsource our public defender, which causes a couple of problems. One, the outsourcing has been rising in costs every year. And we have not been a we haven't been able to get a detailed report as to why those costs have been rising this way. We have it in house and we have control over our costs. It's one, two. We can continue to train our public defenders so that our public gets the best lawyers in the business. And so that's important to have. And so, you know, I'm going to be supporting this. I encourage colleagues that were not in committee and did not get a chance to watch this session to to reach out to Judge Marcus Mackey. He will gladly sit down with you. I want to let it also be known this government team, as the city attorney, is in favor of this as well, and has had extensive conversation with Judge Marcotti as well. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, see no other comments. We are now ready for the block block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Robb, will you please put the resolution on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill 604 be adopted. Council resolution.
|
Bill
|
Amends Chapter 14 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to create the Denver County Court Municipal Public Defender’s Commission and the Office of the Municipal Public Defender to provide legal representation to indigent defendants charged with municipal offenses.
a. Presentation
b. 15 minutes of public comment
c. Discussion/Action (HEALTH SAFETY EDUCATION & SERVICES) Amends Chapter 14 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to create the Denver County Court Municipal Public Defender’s Commission and the Office of the Municipal Public Defender to provide legal representation to indigent defendants charged with municipal offenses. a. Presentation b. 15 minutes of public comment c. Discussion/Action The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-1-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07142014_14-0582
|
Speaker 2: day in the city and county of Denver. Section two at the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix the city the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to the Devoe Board.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Madam President, I move that proclamation number 582 series at that of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 4: Second, it has been moved and seconded. Comments from Council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Being that you this is for seniors. Chris Nevett man, you've got to benefit from this and it's just sad to pick on him. I'd like to call Jeff Martinez for him. If you wanted to come pick. Is it am I.
Speaker 4: On your you're in the comment period. I haven't voted on it.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, that's okay, Jim.
Speaker 2: So prepare to speak.
Speaker 4: Mr. Martinez, get ready. He's given you warning.
Speaker 2: Can we skip a week and I'll completely lose it? So I. I wanted to. I've read this proclamation, I think, for the last, like, four or five years. And I do that with a lot of pride and with a tremendous amount of honor, because not only have I seen the work, but I've actually participated in this and this and this event and this effort. I see countless people smile and cry and just jump for joy and just are so full of gratitude. I seen in Edgewater when you didn't match water. I've seen it in Denver and and the district and the neighborhood that I grew up in and some of the houses that they were that were rehabbed and painted or houses that had not been touched by a paintbrush since I was a little kid and now always recognized that house was the house in bad need of some TLC. And it was a house that a sweet, sweet lady lived there forever. And to go back and see that house not only painted, well-maintained and taken care of, it's it's a microcosm on why you do what you do and why the employees in Denver do what they do on a volunteer basis in this effort. There's a lot of different efforts that our employees get involved in. But this is my favorite because this is where, you know, no matter what department you work for, no matter you know, what your desk looks like or what building it is in the city that day, you work for the volunteer department and you're a painter and you get to enjoy the best paycheck ever. And that is that warm feeling in your heart and that sense of accomplishment when you see that gratitude on your fellow brother and sisters face. And that is done through the tremendous amount of hard work and efforts and a lot of coordination and user and your colleagues and our employees plan on an annual basis. So, Madam President, it is absolutely a prideful moment to be able to read this for the fifth time.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I want to thank brothers for development for the many, many years of service they have provided to our community. I can remember when you had your headquarters in the Sun Valley neighborhood, and interestingly, when I worked at the Denver Human Service Department and we began to figure out how to solve our homeless problem, we realized that the women from the Delores Project used to stay in that building, and during the summertime they would have all their volunteers come in from out of town and stay at their building, and that would displace the women. So we had to find temporary locations for the women until they basically established their own home that ended up being in a city building. But I also want to take a moment to say thank you to all of the city employees who volunteer their time, as well as all of the other volunteers that come out from all over the place and do these homes for seniors across the metro area. I know one year that I volunteered, I was in unincorporated Adams County at the home of an elderly couple. But as Councilman Lopez said, these families are so grateful for the opportunity because if it were not for this program, those improvements would never take place . And so I know how important it is for our community that these things happen, because oftentimes when something falls into a state of disrepair, if it's not taken care of, it will continue to deteriorate. And so I'm very grateful for the work that you all do. And I just want to say a big thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Lopez. Hi, Montero. I never. I. Ortega. Rob Brown.
Speaker 5: Rex Rice. Rex.
Speaker 6: But I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I can.
Speaker 0: Each lemon. Hi, Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 4: Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 11 911 ies the proclamation is adopted. Now, Councilman Lopez, is there someone you'd like to call up?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I'd like to bring Jeff Martinez to the podium.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Madam President. Member City Council Councilman Lopez. Councilman Ortega, for those kind words. And there's not a lot for me to say. You both hit it out of the park just now, and that means that you really do get it and understand the value of this program. And more importantly, because this day it's proclamation, we have clients who are truly in need and who truly deserving of this. These are longtime homeowners in the city. They've lived right. They've done right. They just can't get on those ladders anymore. They just need a a hand or in this case, a brush to help them with that, that maintenance. But this day is really about those city city of Denver employees, members of Devo, who come out and get on those ladders, get on those tall peaks, get up there on those tall peaks and paint the homes and interact with that homeowner and show them, you know, just how much this community cares. And the sheer support of all of this is so tremendous. So you all alluded to the value to that homeowner is huge. It's also important to neighborhoods across the city. We're preserving that seniors most important investment. We're also doing some neighborhood stabilization in the process. Neighbors come out and they say, Gee, how can I get my house painted next year? You know? So we're really lending, I think, to a greater sense of community. And again, hopefully giving those folks an opportunity also to dedicate the resources that they might have spent on that paint job now to pay for their groceries or utilities because they're on fixed income. So really, I just want to say thank you to folks up here in the dais and also those hardworking city of Denver employees who come out every year this Saturday. They're going to be painting, I think, ten houses across the city. And it's going to be, you know, those tremendous stories are going to come out once again, art and everybody else, just the work that they do is so tremendous and so valuable to to our seniors. So I just I have nothing but gratitude. And again, thank you so much for your support this year and every year.
Speaker 4: Thanks for all that you do.
Speaker 6: Madam President, can I just ask a quick question? Do you have enough volunteers for this Saturday or are you still in need of more volunteers?
Speaker 1: We never have enough volunteers. Okay. Always have another ladder, another brush for you.
Speaker 6: This is a great pitch. Where would someone reach out to?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Well, I think get in touch with Arthur. You can call Brother's redevelopment directly and we can put you in touch with other brothers. Redevelopment org is our website. 303202 6340 is our phone number. And again, even if you can't make it out this weekend and this is part of the big Denver day, we'll be painting houses really till it snows. But we have another big day coming up in mid-August. So another opportunity to rally your neighbors, your church, your office, anybody you can get involved. Because we have so many seniors on our waitlist. It's just I can never do enough. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. And congratulations.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the 36th Annual Brother's Redevelopment Paint-A-Thon Day in the City and County of Denver on Saturday, July 19, 2014.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07142014_14-0443
|
Speaker 4: Under bills for final consideration. I see no bills called out and under pending. I see no bills called out. So, Councilman Brooks, what would you like us to do with the bill for 43?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to call it up for a vote.
Speaker 4: All right, Councilwoman CORNISH, will you read the motions this evening?
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President, if.
Speaker 4: You please put Resolution 443 on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I move that resolution 443 be adopted.
Speaker 4: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Yes. The mayor's administration needs to make some changes on the board for the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships, and they're going to look at those necessary changes and come back to us with some appointments. But they would like us to vote down this appointment.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. I see no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Brooks. No.
Speaker 6: But no.
Speaker 0: Herndon. No Carnage, no Liman, no Lopez. No. Montero, no. Nevitt? No. Ortega, Rob. No. Madam President.
Speaker 4: No. Madam Secretary. Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Madam Secretary, will you close the voting, announce results? 11 nays, 11. This resolution for 43 is defeated. Okay. That being said, I'm going to say all the other bills for introduction are published, and I think we are ready for the black vote cast for McNeish. Will you please put the resolutions on the floor for a block vote?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Well, we have no resolutions remaining, Madam President, but.
Speaker 2: Now you've got a mess.
Speaker 4: So do I have them all? Oh, we have my back. I'm sorry. 43. That's.
Speaker 0: I was looking at the wrong section. Yes, Madam President. I move that following resolutions be adopted. Five, 17, five, 18, five, 19, five, 25, 26, five, 29, five, 33 and 541.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council. And. They have been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Brooks. Hi. But I. Herndon I can each I laman. Hi, Lopez. Hi, montero. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. I rob i. Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 4: Madam Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 0: 11 911.
Speaker 4: As the resolutions are adopted. Castro On the condition. Will you please put the bills for final consideration on. On the floor, for adoption? For passing?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move that they'll die in.
Speaker 4: Just a second. I've got a message from the Secretary Jones. Oh, I missed this part. Castro says Bill's on file consideration except for Council Bill for 70. A companion bill regarding the Walton Corridor. Urban Redevelopment Plan Council will vote on this bill after the conclusion of tonight's public hearing on Council Bill 471. Okay, I understand that. Okay, so I guess just omit the 470 in your reading.
Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam President. I move the final following bills to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Five 1436 450 65065095 ten and 516 All series of 2014.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish, that they have been moved and seconded by the secretary roll call.
Speaker 0: Liman by Lopez. All right. Monteiro Nevitt I Ortega I rob i Brooks. Hi, Fats Herndon. I can eat i madam president.
Speaker 4: Hi. Madam Secretary, close voting announced the results.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes. The bills for final consideration do pass tonight. Council will continue from June 16, 2014. Its required public hearing on Council Bill 398 as amended, allowing fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 502 approving the service plans for the proposed JCC Metropolitan District Number one and JCC Metropolitan District Number Two. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 471, amending the Walton Corridor. Urban Development Plan. Urban Renewal Plan. Please note the speakers are allowed only one opportunity to speak on Council Bill 398. If you testified on June 16, you will not have an opportunity to testify a second time tonight. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must see the Council Secretary to sign up during the recess of Council. Madam Secretary, how many minutes do you think we will need? 20 minutes. Okay. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a recess until about a quarter till six. Yeah, of course it's 677. Oh, my goodness. Poor little store.
Speaker 1: Ride the train to the.
Speaker 2: Water tower and enjoy a short hike, give you a multitude of wildflowers, then enjoy a catered boxed lunch on the lawn at the Healy House Museum.
Speaker 1: Reservations required. What is sound.
Speaker 6: And how does it.
Speaker 2: Work? Make some music and explore sound. From bird songs to drumbeats to a laser show. What may be music to your ears may just be noise to others. Rock on 21 and up only. Then enjoy a free day at the Museum of Nature and Science this Sunday afternoon.
Speaker 1: Council is reconvened. We have three required public hearings this evening. We could just reconvene, please.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: We are reconvening, please. Thank you. Council President Sussman had to step out on Council President Pro Tem Herndon. I will be finishing the meeting for her. We have three required public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses . If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Each speaker will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation manner on the wall. When the yellow light comes on, you will have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. And when the red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments. Audience members Please understand that council members use electronic devices for various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us. Be assured, however, by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or
|
Resolution
|
Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Lori Mack to the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Commission for a term effective immediately and expiring 4-20-16, or until a successor is duly appointed. (HEALTH, SAFETY, EDUCATION & SERVICES) Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Lori Mack to the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Commission for a term effective immediately and expiring 4-20-16, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 5-29-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07142014_14-0398
|
Speaker 1: Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments. Audience members Please understand that council members use electronic devices for various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us. Be assured, however, by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during our public hearings. And we will begin with Council Bill 398 as amended. Councilwoman Kenney So will you please put Council Bill 398 on the floor?
Speaker 0: I will. Mr. President, I move that council bill 398 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. We are catching up with the technology for a movement. And in a second it has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Councilor Bill 398 is continued from Monday, June 16, 2014. We have five individuals to speak this evening. I'm going to call up the first five if you can make your way to the podium here at the front. That will help speed up the proceedings. We have our five our Mr. Texter. Mr. SEKOU. Mr.. KORNACKI. This is Grant and Mrs. Glassmaker. So those five can feel free to make your way to the podium. And we will begin with Mr. Texter.
Speaker 8: That tax of 4535. Julian Street, Denver. Growing fruits and vegetables in the city seems like a good idea. Maybe making a few dollars selling it isn't all that bad.
Speaker 1: However, on July 9th, a homeless man sleeping in a Denver alleyway beneath plastic sheeting was run over by a recycling truck. In the meantime, through Denver's Rent a Cop program, the Downtown Denver Partnership is sanitizing the 16th Street Mall for the enjoyment of tourists. It seems that instead of passing this ordinance, the city would bring more credit.
Speaker 8: To itself if it bought.
Speaker 1: The produce and distribute it on the mall.
Speaker 8: To the neediest of its citizens.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. TEXT. Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 7: My name is Chairman Siku. I am the founder organizer of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. We unconditionally support this ordinance, which will legalize what folks have been doing since the last 60 years. I've been born with or without permission of government because it was a practical thing to do. And when I was growing up, there was canning going on in my house. We were sharing that with neighbors and sometimes there was a bathroom. You know, I'll give you this a can of peas and you give me some cabbage or some greens or some yams and whatnot. And so it's nice to be able to say that people can now come out from the shadows of illegality and do something that makes some sense without any fear of being prosecuted or persecuted, for having the ability to do something that we were made to do as human beings. And that was to grow our own food and feed ourselves without the interference of anybody, as long as we were preserving the land so that we can continue that on and make the land better for the next generation so they could do the same thing. And so it makes sense. And so we thank counsel for coming together, because I know this vote is going to be unanimous, because the truth is, you've already made up your mind. It was in subcommittee. Once it comes up, once the horse get out, the barn is a done deal, even when it's close. If you understand the process and I come to accept that as just part of the way we do what we do down here after coming here for three and a half years to study and research the process. So congratulations on having the common sense to let folks do what's been practical all my life. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr.. Q Mr.. KORNACKI.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Eric Renacci. I live at 160 Hooker Street in the Burnham neighborhood. I shared the previous speakers enthusiasm for this bill. It's about time that we return to the common sense practice of feeding ourselves and feeding our neighborhood. I'm extremely proud to represent the Sustainable Food Policy Council of Denver today, where we took up this issue about two years ago as something that not only made sense, but we also knew that it would make an incredible impact on communities throughout Denver, particularly the low income and underserved communities that do not have access to healthy food . I also an executive director of a nonprofit called Revision and Rework in the Southwest Corridor, primarily the Westwood neighborhood where Councilman Lopez, just out of faith, invited us in 2009 to come meet residents of the community that I think we're tired of not having the power to bring a grocery store into their community. And we're suffering from some of the worst diet related health effects in the entire city of Denver. And we started with a very basic premise of teaching people to grow their own food, utilizing their own land. What started in 2009 with seven families, I'm very proud to say, is over 300 families in southwest Denver this year growing their own food and feeding their neighbors. And last year alone, we produced over £20,000 of food. These are many small time small households that are starting a ten by ten plot in their own yard. And what we came to find is that not only were they producing such an abundance for their own family, but they were sharing with their neighbors whether it was an extended family, someone at their church, someone at their school. But there was clearly enough surplus to go around. In addition, many of these families live on less than $15,000 a year. That's self-reported. And so we said, hey, would you be interested in selling your own food? And every one of them said, yes. How do I go about doing that? So we're in the process of starting a community owned grocery store. You may have heard that in the mayor's State of the City address today, but one of the most immediate solutions is allowing people to set up a stand at their house and say, Come buy my produce from their neighbors. So I think, Councilwoman, can each four, four spearheading this bill and everybody else that has been in support of it. And I thank you for taking it up today.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. KORNACKI. Beverly Grant.
Speaker 6: Greetings, Honorable Council members. I appreciate this opportunity to speak before you. I live at 3615 York in the Cole neighborhood. I would also like to thank Councilwoman CORNISH, Councilwoman Shepherd in her absence and Councilwoman Brooks, because they were kind of like the trio that spearheaded this movement. A couple of things I would like to share. I have been working for the past six, seven years in our local food movement. My work has been primarily focused in northeast Denver, which is a food desert neighborhood. And this particular legislation, in addition with the agricultural food producing legislation that's already passed and the Kurdish Food Act, plus this one that's on the table right now, lay a strong foundation to strengthen our urban ag movement, because we'll have fresh agricultural products, value added foods that can spurn a lot of neighborhood economics, that little bitty pockets block by block. You heard Eric story of 300 neighbors in a neighborhood. I have that same vision where I live, where there's not nearly that much growing going on. And this legislation will help to get us organized, lay a strong platform for doing it. My vision is to start in five points. Keep moving east.
Speaker 2: That's the Green Valley.
Speaker 6: Little by little, I like to point out that this is also a step toward raising food production in our mayors overall goal of of our city being able to feed itself with local foods. Then one other thing. The definition of a food desert is where residents have to travel miles to get to food. This would kind of create a tipping point where the shift would be going blocks to get food. And in closing, I would like to say that not only does this legislation encourage individual families to be a part of their own food solution, but it will also encourage more neighborhood connectedness around food, around sharing and around improved health . Thank you for listening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And our last speaker to maker. And I apologize if I misspoke.
Speaker 6: I'm Sue Glass Maker. I'm here representing Curtis Park Neighbors. Curtis Park Neighbors was advised early on in this process by the cottage food people. They did an excellent job of helping us understand this. And also we knew about it from planning at I.N.S., so we're pretty well versed in it. Curtis Park neighbors voted unanimously to support this text amendment, and we feel that you just have to look at Vermont to see how this works. Vermont is the leader in the nation on this type of cottage industry stuff because the people there have to scrape for jobs. And what happens is people develop an entrepreneurial mindset and they start doing this. And it's amazing what happens when a little thing happens. And it's an easy way for people to not only feed themselves good food, but it's an easy way for them to start a business with with low risk and low startup cost so they can take a little whirl at it in a very small way. And it's amazing what can come out of that. And it's mostly that independent spirit that gets fostered. So, again, we were unanimously in favor of this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Seen on the public hearing for 398 is close and now it's time for comments from members of council. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 0: I will yield to my colleagues. Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I'll ring in at the end here.
Speaker 1: Certainly, Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Sheppard could not be here this evening and asked that I read her letter for you. So I'm going to read the letter from Councilwoman Shepherd. I am very sorry not to be able to be here for tonight's historic vote, as I am on vacation with my family. That was planned long ago. I am definitely with you in spirit. However, as I'm very proud of all the.
Speaker 5: Work the local food.
Speaker 6: Community and my colleagues, council member Albert Brooks and especially Councilwoman Robin Kennish, have done to move this ordinance forward. As many of you may know.
Speaker 0: I actually did.
Speaker 6: Backyard vegetable.
Speaker 0: Farming on my own.
Speaker 6: Just prior to being elected to council in 2011. This was during two and a half year period where I was home taking care.
Speaker 0: Of my son and it provided me with a little income and something to keep me and my.
Speaker 6: Mind busy engaged when I wasn't changing diapers or feeding the baby.
Speaker 0: I did it on a very small.
Speaker 6: Scale basis and my profit margins were extremely slim, especially since the only way to easily distribute my produce was to drop it off at my customers home and my vehicle, further eating into any profits that I made due to money I spent on gaffs. I often and fantasized about how nice it would be to be able to sell vegetables from my own home and also some minimally processed products such as jam. Recently I taught Revision International, a nonprofit organization that teaches people how to grow food for themselves and their neighbors in Council District three. I had the opportunity to meet a wonderful family of seven who lived in a very small one bedroom house with the help and direction from Rent Revision International and access to a little bit of land. This family is growing all their own food, sharing quite a bit with their neighbors, and selling the extra to help supplement their very modest income. Their gardens are beautiful national my showcases in a food desert and have attracted the attention of many.
Speaker 0: Including.
Speaker 6: Media outlets such as encryption. These are a couple of examples of the type of people and enterprise this ordinance can help. And I precisely the reason I am proud to co-sponsor this ordinance, this my carefully crafted bill can.
Speaker 5: Increase.
Speaker 6: Access to healthy foods in areas where none exist, contributing to a healthier parents and children in areas where it may take years to recruit a major grocery store. This ordinance also gives opportunity to many people who are prolific gardeners or talented home food producers to sell a little bit of their bounty and help bring some much needed income to supplement their incomes. It also gives communities the chance to learn more about where their food comes from and helps children and adults reconnect meaningfully with the land in a way that has been lost in our hectic culture. It gives the opportunity for more of our dollars to continue circulating locally and boosting our economy rather than draining away to out of state or out of country. Agribusiness producers, whom we had never met and may not share our values on what it means to grow food.
Speaker 5: In a.
Speaker 6: Sustainable manner. Once again, I applaud all the hard work that has transpired to bring this ordinance forward, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Lemon. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I for a ten minute joke. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I never thought when I took office how how much of an issue, a social justice issue, the price and location of a vegetable would be and this is this has truly been a transformational process for me personally. I think any time I sponsor legislation, I want to have the kind of the three the three piece. Right. The personal transformation has some specific projects in the district that we're working on and and always thinking of some larger policy issues. And so for the projects we live in. Northeastern was one of the largest food deserts in the city. And as I was knocking on doors when I was running for office in 2011, a lot of folks commented on this and they talked about the length it was to walk to a grocery store in District eight, only had Safeway. And so 55,000 residents with one major grocery store. You know, it's ridiculous. So we worked really hard with a couple of developers and also with Sunflower, which then changed its name to to locate right there on Colfax. And thanks to the council and a lot of community support, we were able to to get to get that sunflower there. And it is one of the, you know, top revenue producing grocery stores in their whole network. So it was really exciting to see that, you know, we we've been working really hard to find out. Can we get another one in five points? Can we get another one in right now? And all over the northeast, northeast, Denver, in collaborating even with Globeville, Elyria, Swansea, where these nodes and these pockets of of grocery empty grocery stores are, you know, I, I was excited when Councilwoman Canete brought this forward and I want to thank her for her leadership in this. She's been wonderful to work with, very thorough and the community support that's behind it. I have neighbors, actually. Beverly Grant is my neighbor. So, you know, I had to get my stuff together. But I have neighbors who are so excited about this piece of legislation. And it's it's I think it is a tremendous microeconomic plan for neighbors to get involved, not only to become healthy by growing their own, but by being able to be a part of this local economy. Last last week, you know, we've been we've been planting our own little garden in the Brooks household. And my joy comes when my my kids, every day, they get home from school, they run straight to the garden and they're able to see, how's the zucchini doing? Okay. How's the tomatoes doing? Okay. The squash is looking pretty good. And so you see that we're instilling this in young people. And even in my family, we didn't we didn't have these kind of opportunities. And so that my kids are already starting at this young of age and they understand how to plant and they understand how to be a part of this healthy lifestyle is transformational. And that's why it's so important that we pass this piece of legislation. So I will I'll be supporting this. I think it's important when we when we tackle food deserts, that we have the macro in the micro envision, we've got to make sure that we have these grocery stores. But at the same time, we've got to make sure that there's a local grass root education going on throughout our community. And I think this policy is going to create that. So I hope that my colleagues will support this. And once again, thank you to Councilwoman Shepherd and Councilwoman Cohen each.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I am absolutely supportive of this ordinance. I think this is frankly a no brainer for us. And I think that you'll find that, you know, a lot of folks are very supportive in this city, and a lot of folks would probably say, you mean we couldn't do that in the first place? Right. I mean, there's there's a lot of support. Hmm. Unfortunately, we still have food deserts and having Eric and folks at revision and the bottom up thought out in Westwood working to stand in the gap. Basically when it comes to food deserts, they do it passionately. They do it despite the rising cost of water. Although in these chambers we vote to create this ordinance to support this, there are other quasi governmental chambers that still give give us grief about a reduced rate in water so that folks can actually grow. I'm talking about Denver water. We need to be able to partner and we need to be able to do this, not just the city and county of Denver, but in all of our agencies to support this and to support this effort, because that's the gap. The gap is that in very many neighborhoods, for decades, they've had. No grocery store. And if they do, it's potato chips and Pepsi. And it's not something that is healthy and not something that promotes a healthy lifestyle or combats disease and obesity. In some zip codes in Denver, you have folks who suffer from such high rates of diabetes and heart disease and obesity that they live 12 years less than other zip codes and people in other zip codes. That's how bad this crisis is. And if we are witnessing a health crisis now, imagine what it will be like ten, 20, 30 years down the line when those same communities do not have access to fresh produce. So this is absolutely standing in the gap and allowing folks to build that local economy because jobs are still hard to come by. But I don't want this passes tonight, which I expect it to and expect to see. A lot of the proponents in this chain, in these chambers continue to do the hard work that they're doing. I don't want this to be an excuse as to not put a grocery store in a neighborhood and not fill those gaps in this city where people do not have access to healthy food. We have the power and we have the resources in this city combined to do that. The entities constructed and assembled and boardrooms ready to do that. It just takes the will. My son has guns, as we say, in Westwood and in West Denver. The desire to do it. Until then, I apply to you all for taking this commonsense idea, turning it into legislation. I applaud sponsors for doing this and making sure that in the meantime, great folks like you are standing in the gap and there's great progress and there's an amazing sense of community that is born out of this. So I absolutely support this, and it's something that's long overdue. It is something that is absolutely ancient in its ways and ancient in its wisdom. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't mean that like Brooks did. I meant that. I'm sorry. Thank you, counsel. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Mr. President. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I've heard how enthusiastic some of our citizens are about this proposal, both from tonight and the time before. And they've convinced me that it may be a worthwhile project for some areas of town. Unfortunately, this proposal applies to almost all zoning districts. And I do think, Councilwoman CORNISH, for exempting several small areas in my district that historically have had very restrictive zoning. Now, not the areas in my district are in a food desert. So that's different from the testimony that many of you have given. We do not have that issue, and that's not something we're solving for by considering this ordinance. My three most active associations chose to take a formal vote on this proposal. And all three of those will be included in the sales. So they are included under this ordinance. One neighborhood split. Two unanimously opposed. Ironically, the night that the two that unanimously opposed these ordinances, the night that they took the vote, they had a guest speaker. And it was a master gardener, a professional gardener who had supplies that he had brought. And he was trying to have people even have some freebies to take home. So there was a good crowd and they were all ones who wanted to garden. They really did find a number of problems, however, and chose that they didn't want to support it. They did, however, say that they wished that the ordinance was trying to promote more farmers markets on arterials that they would have supported. They did. I would say that the most common complaint I get from constituents when I send out my survey is they write back saying, please don't let my neighborhood go downhill. Traffic and commercialization. Are two of the things they're concerned about now. I would say their biggest concern about this ordinance is that it dramatically increases commercialization in residential areas and it's visible. I mean, not like somebody cutting hair behind your closed door. You don't do that out on the front lawn. Here, you're going to be doing it out on the front lawn. There's going be a stamp set up, could be from 8 a.m. to dusk every day of the year according to this ordinance. That is something that they are extremely concerned about. Likewise, we have such a large yards and the potential of growing so much vegetable that there would be a possibility that traffic could increase because people would be drawn to these areas. And that is something that concerns them. I'd certainly be tempted to support this if it started with, say, areas of change and allowed stable neighborhoods that wanted.
Speaker 4: To to opt.
Speaker 6: In. If we were to start smaller and see how this goes in areas that really do have the need. That would be something I'd be tempted to support. But that's not how this ordinance is written. And given the feedback I have gotten in my areas, I will not be supporting it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Nevett. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Oh, excuse me. So I want to express my support for this. But I also want to do two other things. One is to make a whiny little complaint, and then I'll follow that up with something that might maybe a civics lesson that I've learned from the whining complaint. So starting with the expression of support, this move makes perfect sense. In a perfect sense, it's it's the obvious next step in a trajectory that we began some time ago, a trajectory towards a more inclusive, a more local, a more diverse, a more sustainable food system. And each step on this trajectory, each step that we've taken has been preceded by a great deal of anxiety and nervousness and controversy. And each step that we've taken has been followed by almost complete silence and no problems whatsoever. This started with Councilwoman Lemon. She was the one who kicked this off down this road by moving to legalize the keeping of bees inside the city and county of Denver. So you can imagine the controversy associated with potential of your neighbor keeping bees. But she persevered. We legalized the keeping of bees. And as far as I know, there have been virtually no complaints of the keeping of bees. Great. So people who want to keep bees can keep bees. Some people are better off. Nobody's worse off. I followed that up by legalizing the keeping of chickens. Again, a great deal of anxiety controversy. Your neighbors are going to keep chickens and all hell is going to break loose. But we persevered and we passed the legalization of the keeping of chickens. And we have had virtually no complaints over the keeping of chickens. So once again, people have more diverse food sources. They get to enjoy what they are doing. They have new freedoms and some people are better off and no people are worse off. So this is clearly the the next step. We're a diverse city with diverse interests and diverse enthusiasms. If you want to do something, even if I don't particularly like it, and you can do it without causing problems for your neighbor. Who are we to say no? So now let me get to my whiny little complaint. Inside this bill is the provision that the sale of cottage foods cannot begin until 8:00 in the morning. But in the rest of our code, you can begin almost anything at 7:00 in the morning, so I can start hammering shingles on my roof at 7 a.m., I can start running a table saw in my backyard at 7 a.m.. I can start jackhammering up my sidewalk at 7 a.m., but I have to wait until 8 a.m. to go next door and buy a basket of tomatoes from my neighbor because otherwise it would be too disruptive. So down the road this perversity will be ridiculed and the people ridiculing her will wonder what kind of morons were on city council who thought that buying vegetables was more disruptive than jackhammering your sidewalk? And you know, our code is rife with this. Everyone can point to pieces of our governance that are obviously ridiculous and that, you know, the who were the idiots on city council who approved this. But this is actually a great opportunity to offer maybe just a little bit of a civics lesson. This kind of outcome isn't the product of morons because there's 13 brilliant people on the city council. This is one of the dis tempers of democracy. This is what happens actually, when democracy works. Councilwoman Kennish has done exactly the right thing. She had a good idea. She saw input from all corners of the city. That input was diverse. Some people were supportive. Some people were opposed. People had concerns. And she tried to address those concerns. And one of the ways as a good representative, Democratic representative, addressing some of those concerns involved, allaying some of the fears of some people in some neighborhoods by moving the start time from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.. And I noticed tonight this was not without controversy, but tonight everyone is testifying in favor. So those who are opposed appear to be somewhat mollified and they're not here. Councilwoman Kennish did exactly the right thing, and this ordinance is the product of that democratic process. But that democratic process is not always internally coherent. It's not always absolutely consistent in the way it would be if we simply wrote the rules with a single point of view and a single point of time with a single perspective. So down the road, when you find something that the city is doing that you think is moronic or crazy or perverse or incomprehensible, just think back to this. And remember, sometimes when democracy works, you get outcomes that aren't necessarily coherent, but they're democratic nonetheless. And I look forward to getting this passed and letting people sell food to their neighbors, as they should have been all along. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Nemec, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to thank Councilwoman Kenny for her efforts. I know that she's been working on this for some time and has done very extensive outreach to our RINO's and other organizations that care very much about this issue. I was part of a group that went to New Mexico a couple of months ago looking at and talking about food sustainability issues, and we came back with some very important lessons learned and suggestions. And we're actually following up with two meetings next week with a number of our key city players to talk about some of those lessons learned, including the fact that if you have not looked at the food section in the mayor's climate action plan, there's not very much in there about food. And so we've got some strong suggestions that we're going to be talking with some of the Cabinet members about that we'd like to see incorporated into the Climate Action Plan , because that's a document that looks, you know, years into the future. And you've got to take into account the new opportunities that are available. And when you look at what cities are doing all across the country and we had a chance to learn from other cities in the southwest, this was a tremendous opportunity where they're trying to address many of the same topics that we talked about here tonight of providing food for people that are in food deserts, creating the opportunities for people to grow food in their home, and they can make a little bit of money from that. We have organizations in Denver like Denver Urban Gardens, who has been around for, I want to say, almost 30 years. Is that. Correct. Whereby we have specific fixed site locations in the city of Denver that are serving people in those neighborhoods. Many of them when they started, were very low income communities. But many of those original gardeners, even though many of them may have left that neighborhood, still garden in those in those locations and are providing food for their families. I think the opportunity to be able to allow folks to sell what they are growing to their neighbors, to folks that are in need. I think you're going to see some traffic reduction because you're going to see neighbors walking to neighbors homes. You're not going to see people getting in cars and driving to the grocery store because they're going to enjoy having access to fresh fruit and vegetables. And so I think that's a good thing. I think this is a big step forward for the city. I'm excited about the opportunities that it's going to create. I've been gardening for a number of years. As a matter of fact, Councilman Brown, who's not here tonight, has historically shared tomatoes with many of us. I'm growing some yellow tomatoes from a plant that he gave, and I'm just waiting for them to get ripe so I can try to see how they compare to the red tomatoes. I'm not planning to sell anything out of my garden because I usually just give stuff away when I have any excess. But I think this is a big step in the right direction for the city of Denver, and I'm very happy to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you again, Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to thank Councilman Kennish and Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman Sheperd for bringing this creative and most needed amendment forward several years ago. I was able to sponsor a text amendment that would allow for aquaponics in this in the Swansea neighborhood. And at the time it was something that wasn't really being done. But the whole idea behind aquaponics in this old and this old greenhouse was to allow for fish to float in a tank and swim around and then be able to use the fertilized water to grow lettuce and other vegetables in this particular greenhouse. And that's when I began to learn so much about the merits of the food justice system and movement and the empowerment that people feel when they grow their own food. The awesome, amazing power that people feel when they when they can do that. And then that was followed by the bees and the chickens and the goats. And and now today, we're talking about being able to just put a basket out in front of your yard and be able to sell. So I am really, really excited about that. The idea that the city of Denver actually recognizes the food justice movement is so amazing and incredible to me that something so simple as being able to grow your own food in your garden can actually help you with your and your family and being able to bring everybody together, your community, but even the basic economics of growing your own vegetables. I'll just give you a real quick example. The other day, we were in the mood for color visitors, which is, you know, squash and onions and jalapenos and garlic. And we went to the farmer's market because we didn't want to go to a to a grocery store. And I took tabs on how much I paid for everything. You know, each squash was like a dollar 50 each could eat. You know, each dollar piano was, you know, like two for a dollar 50 and the onion and the garlic. And I thought, Oh, if I had a garden in the back, I could have just gone and, you know, picked my own little garden. So it wasn't a lot of money, but, you know, it kind of adds up. And I thought I could, you know, I could do this. Now I want to say that I have just one little tomato and his name is Tiny Tim and he's sitting in the kitchen. And I'm trying to do my best to have him thrive. And maybe someday he'll, you know, maybe someday I'll have tomatoes. But what I'm trying to say is that if you're talking to somebody that doesn't really know how to grow a garden, but here's what I'm willing to do. You know, I'm willing to learn about composting. You know, I'm willing to pull weeds and. Willing to try my garden. And I think, you know, the idea of just being able to have that possibility. And I would be so excited if I was able to grow something and somebody would buy it from me, you know? You know, the squash or the garlic. I would just be so happy with myself to be able to do that. So I, you know, I come to it with the idea of actually being joyful about growing and having fun doing that. So I support this. Many of my constituents have weighed in and, you know, they're excited about it, too, because we live in an amazing city that's always pushing the envelope and trying to do new things. So I will be supporting this and congratulations to all the sponsors.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Rob.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Just a couple of word choice or semantic differences with my colleagues, but general support of this bill. Councilman Lopez said that this is a no brainer. And I think you said for us. I think that's definitely true in some neighborhoods.
Speaker 6: That this is.
Speaker 0: Pretty universally wanted. But in my neighborhood, I didn't find.
Speaker 6: It a slam dunk in my district.
Speaker 0: To talk to the neighborhoods. I probably have 15 neighborhood organizations at least. I put this in my newsletter three times, about three months in a row.
Speaker 6: Asking for feedback.
Speaker 0: Referencing all the links. Of course we know how much people read email, so maybe not everybody read it. But of all of that, in Councilwoman Connection's outreach, only two neighborhood groups discussed the ordinance enough to then contact me. One couldn't agree to support it, but they also couldn't.
Speaker 6: Agree to oppose it. And so I sort of had this letter.
Speaker 0: Or communication of.
Speaker 6: We discussed.
Speaker 0: It and we don't know it. It wasn't a no brainer for them.
Speaker 6: They had some real.
Speaker 0: Concerns and they had some real desires. One neighborhood did oppose it, which has given me a lot of pause and probably for some of the reasons that Councilwoman Frances neighborhood opposed it. The commercialization of a neighborhood which I understood, but I but both Councilwoman and I took some time to talk to those neighborhood leaders. And then while I get thousands of emails on all sorts of topics, I don't think I had more than five.
Speaker 6: Personal emails.
Speaker 0: On this topic from Council District ten, and probably this just shows how different all our districts really are. We don't have large lots in my district. It's probably not a huge income burner for.
Speaker 6: Folks in my district.
Speaker 0: And that's a second sort of word choice disagreement I have. I don't know if this is a huge step for Denver. I actually think it's sort of a small step. One of the neighborhood leaders, zoning chair in Cherry Creek North and I were chatting and I said, I don't think this is going to happen much in our district, sort of like the corner lemonade stand. And he laughed and he said, Yeah, we'll probably have a celery stand on the corner. Some kid will be out selling celery. And there.
Speaker 6: Wasn't that that.
Speaker 0: Great a concern. We're not talking, although it's important to grow your own produce. It's a good hobby, can be healthy, can be a lot of work. But we're not talking about a get rich fast scheme here in growing produce and selling it. Councilwoman Sheppard's letter referenced how little she actually made. Still, I think it's good for the neighborhoods where they want to do it and not harmful for the neighborhoods where there's not as much interest. So I am going to go ahead and support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to all of my colleagues for the thoughtful comments. This job. I love this job. Did I say that once tonight? Already it's really a privilege. And you can choose to make an impact in a lot of different ways from the Council. We have a rule in our office which is that we only ever take something on if we have a partner. We're small, we only have myself and two staff who are outstanding, but we want things to live past my term in office. We want things to live past what three people can do. And so every now and then you get lucky and in walks the door, an amazing set of partners, and they have an idea. And so in this case, it was the Sustainable Food Policy Council, which is a group of appointees of the mayor and also a collaborative known as the Live Well Regional Community Collaborative, few other revision and other organizations. But thank you to those. Partners, some of whom spoke today. But also thank you to the other residents who spoke. We had Curtis Park here and in the prior hearing we had other residents. We really did have what I call true democracy, which is people came up with an idea and they researched it and then they brought it to our office. So so I didn't do very much work on this one. And really the work was done by those partners and my staff. So Dana miller, Shayna Spurlock, our planning person, Sarah Showalter, and also my staff even, that's on it. I also want to thank Mayor Hancock because I appreciate his evaluation of this ordinance compared to the priorities that he has for the city in which today was our state of the city, where he talked about these things. He talked about food that doesn't travel so far and food that's accessible. And so I thank him for his support of this ordinance, which he shared with all of our colleagues last week to those who've had a few concerns about neighborhood quality of life. We did research the other cities that have done this. Wheat Ridge has had this in place for some time. Not one complaint related to quality of life. The city of Seattle, almost identical in size 600, some thousand residents, very similar, you know, size of the city, neighborhoods that are somewhat dense with some neighborhoods that are somewhat more suburban or bigger, bigger yards. No complaints related to quality of life. Parking just has not been an issue, and we have no evidence that it would become an issue. There is an interest the city has in uniformity of zoned districts, and I want to share that. Although I'm passionate and part of the reason I was excited to bring this ordinance up in terms of food deserts in low income neighborhoods, I am at large and I took this on with the intentional desire that it was really something that should be available to all neighborhoods, that which may be small for the city, could be very large for an individual. And so when I heard from a retired woman in a very middle class, stable neighborhood with access to three grocery stores that she felt pretty excited about making her jam available and that this was something in her retirement that would give her joy. That's an opportunity. And so I don't think that this only is about some neighborhoods in the city. I do think it's a different opportunity in different neighborhoods, but equally valid and equally important. And so I do want to thank Sue Ackerson from from Curtis Park about the economics in my own house, the entrepreneurial spirit as is taking wind. And I recently had, you know, access to regular and my five year old son informed me that we were no longer allowed to give it to the neighbor because we were supposed to be selling it. So, so clearly. Clearly, that entrepreneurial spirit starts early and takes off with a vengeance. Nothing in this ordinance prohibits the free distribution of vegetables. And I'll just please note. And so I'm excited that it's not often you can with one swoop, one person can earn a little cash and one person can get some fresh food. And you don't have to leave the neighborhood. And that's what this does. And I believe we will have a review at one year point. I'm sure at that point we're going to find that there were very few problems, but we will follow up on any that arise. And I appreciate the city for engaging in the dialog. People learned a lot through this process about why it's safer to buy your vegetable from your neighbor than it is from a farm. Produce in a country that uses pesticides that are banned here, or from a farm that uses machinery, equipment, even if it's on the western slope that's subject to bacteria in ways that handheld vegetables are not. And so people learned a lot about food safety and about all of the pieces of this. So so this was a conversation not just here at the dais, but across the city. And so I think everyone who is engaged in it and who communicated, regardless of their concerns or their side on the issue. And with that, I thank my colleagues and urged them to vote yes and respect those who will dissent, but appreciate their engagement as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. See no other comments from members of the Council. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Can each I Liman by Lucas Montero. Nevitt Ortega, Rob Fry, Brooks.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 6: But no.
Speaker 0: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Lehman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please go to the end and have the results. 9199918 Council Bill 398 has passed. We are moving on to our second public hearing council bill. 502 Councilwoman Kenneth, would you please put council bill 502 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill five oh to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to allow fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE ) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07142014_14-0502
|
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill five oh to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in, seconded the public hearing for council bill. Final Two is now open. May we have the staff report? Good morning or good afternoon. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I'm Andrew Johnston. I'm here at the Department of Finance on special districts and I'm here on Council Bill 502 Series 2014, which is an an ordinance to approve the service plans for the creation of the JCC Metropolitan Districts, number one. And two, the service plans for the JCC Metropolitan Districts. One and two are being submitted for the City Council approval on behalf of Globeville One LLC, pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Control Act, Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This are these districts that we're going to hear about today have been a true collaboration between the Adams County and Denver County as the metro districts are located on a site that is the former Asarco smelting plant site, with approximately 80% of the project being located in Adams County and 20% located in Denver, generally located at the northwest corner of East 51st Street and Washington, running north to East 55th Street. The development will not have any residential development and accommodates only commercial and manufacturing development within the district's physical boundaries. The service plans address public infrastructure financing on the multi-jurisdictional, multi-jurisdictional site districts one and two are located in Denver and are the service plans pending for approval tonight. The service plans of districts number three and four are concurrently going through Adams County approvals process and should receive final approval on July 22nd. The service plans of Adams County are substantially the same as Denver's service plans. Adams County has agreed to include Denver's requirements of prevailing wage, smaller disadvantaged business enterprises, discrimination and public art. The districts will be responsible for coordinating the construction operation, financing and maintenance of all the improvements the JCC metropolitan districts have. All the powers of a metropolitan district described in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes as limited in the pending service plans. The financing plan specifies that a debt cap of 50 mills for debt and a total debt cap for all four districts not to exceed 25 million. The service plans anticipate 9.6 million of estimated infrastructure cost, utilizing only 40 mills for debt and issuing bonds to fund the infrastructure over time, including principal and interest. The service plans also anticipate levying ten mills for operations. The district's proponents are aiming for a November 2014 election for district creation upon approval by property owners in the districts at the November election and the court order, the districts will have the authority to operate in a manner prescribed in their service plans, city staff recommends and approval of Council Bill five or to the applicant. Their representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to your questions regarding this Council bill. We will hear quickly a presentation from the developer and via finance group Cameron Birch, Ron and Sarah Laverty are here. The law offices of McKee de Cisneros, including Cassie Affirmant and Megan Becker, are here, and the city attorney's office. Karen Adolescent Nathan Lucero also worked on this project. Now we'll hear from Cameron Bertrand. The presentation, Madam Secretary. And. So.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Cameron Bertrand. I work for Enviro Finance Group and our company, Globeville One LLC is the applicant. Our company is located at 475 17th Street in downtown Denver. We are a Denver company, and I just wanted to provide a brief bit of context around the technical portions of the metropolitan district that Andrew just brought forward. Enviro finance group is a company that is Denver based. We're headquartered here and we specialize in what we call brownfield redevelopment. We acquire, remediate and finance the redevelopment of environmentally contaminated properties. And it's always exciting for us to have a project in our own backyard, as this one very much is. The project itself, as Andrew said, is located between 55th Street and 51st Street in north central Denver, along the corridor that is Washington. It's a 77 acre site which in a fully built out city like Denver, is quite a large area and we think create a great opportunity for the neighborhood and for Denver as a whole of that area. You see the county line in the slide in front of you is located along 52nd Avenue. So approximately 15 acres are in Denver and approximately 62 are in Adams County. That being said, I think it's worth noting that the neighborhood most immediately affected by this site, both historically and going forward, is the Globeville, Elyria, Swansea neighborhoods. This was a historic source of employment for them and we hope will be again in the future. Once we accommodate for roads, drainage, infrastructure, we get about 60 net developable acres. It is a contaminated site and has been for many, many years. The history of this site is one of the Asarco companies Globe plant where they've smelted metal dating back as early as 1886. On the good side of that is it created a great many jobs for a great many people for a long time. The downside of that is that the process of smelting metal contaminated the buildings, the soil and the groundwater. And it's been that case for many, many years. Our company has gone about the remediation process, and that includes the abatement and demolition of all the buildings that were out there, remediation of the groundwater that would otherwise flow as a base and into the South Platte River and then also soil remediation so that the soil itself is not a danger to health and human environment. I won't go into the details on this slide, but I've got it here. If anybody has questions later, the process for development is to take the site where we find it today or where we found it in 2011 when we started abate and demolish those buildings. That work has been done and was completed in 2012. That sets the stage for groundwater and soil remediation, which then sets the stage for grading and infrastructure. And then that middle slide, what you see is what what? Once we've been stopped, once we've graded out the site and installed the infrastructure you will have, which is basically four large super pads that can then accommodate individual commercial development . So that image on the right is one version of how this site might build out. That grading is not a small matter. There's about a 40 foot grade difference between 55th and 51st. So a lot of the exercise is one of creating flat, developable pads. The picture that you see on the right is just one example of how it might built out. But that example, there is a million square feet of new commercial development, which we think is an exciting opportunity for central Denver, north central Denver, but also its capacity to create jobs for for the residents of North Denver. In terms of timeline, like I said, we completed abatement and demolition of the buildings in 2012. Groundwater remediation was fully installed in two phases and completed by late last year. It is working, we think, extremely well. All the readings that we're getting suggest that the remedy is working and we believe that by the end of this year , the first quarter of next year, the groundwater remedy will be completely signed off on by the Colorado Department of Health and Public Environment. Soil remediation is follows. Groundwater remediation is underway now. It's an exercise of mixing the contaminated soils to stabilize them and then place them in a location where they don't come into contact with either groundwater or people. That is work that we expect to be done before the end of this year and it will then concurrent with over lot site creating or the placement of clean soil on top of the contaminated soil. What that does is that puts us in a position at the end of this year to actually begin to install site infrastructure, stormwater pipes, sewer pipes, water pipes, roads, streetscapes, etc. Which brings me to why we're starting this process now to create the metropolitan districts to do this site entitlement, to get the sign off so that at the end of this year, when the remediation is done, we'll have all the approvals that we need to go immediately into site site development and we think set the stage for vertical development as early as the second half of next year. So we think it's an exciting opportunity. The Metropolitan District is the tool that helps us finance that site infrastructure. Specifically, we think we have about $9.7 million worth of public infrastructure to install on this site, mainly consisting of streets, streetscapes, stormwater, sanitary sewer and water. The metropolitan district, we believe, has a bonding capacity of about 11.85 million, which, after fees and other costs, yields about $9.7 million worth of capacity to spend. It's worth noting that those models were run at 40 mills while the district has a capacity of 50 mills. So that extra ten mills that we don't intend to use do provide an additional $6.1 million in capacity if the infrastructure were to cost more than we anticipate the district is. The service plan includes a $25 million maximum debt issuance with a 50,000,000 million maximum. Debt service limit in terms of the mills on the site. And the other thing that we just put on here to note is that this site is also an urban renewal area with a property tax increment area, again in both Adams County and our county. So we will also have an agreement with Deer to provide for what I would call sort of the pass through of those property taxes that would go to Daera and then come back to the district so that the district can make its debt service. And then just in in in closing, I just wanted to say a broad thank you to an enormously long list of people that I won't go through. But this is a project that has been around in Denver since at least 2007, if not longer. The cooperation between Denver and Adams County has been remarkable. The work that the city agencies from Finance and Office of Economic Development that provided a grant, Adams County provided a HUD 108 loan, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority and the City Council provided a backstop for that loan to give HUD the comfort, to put it in place in the first place. And then all of the many, many neighborhood groups and neighborhood meetings that have gone into it. And a personal thank you to Councilwoman Monteiro, who has been there every step of the way, sometimes patting us on the back and sometimes kicking us in the butt to keep this one moving forward. And it has been a real privilege to work on it. And we're excited to be at a place where we can start talking less about cleaning it up and more about building buildings. And with that, I'll sit down. I do. If you have actual questions or hard questions. Kathy and the folks from D.A. Davidson are here and we can answer those questions. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Johnston for the staff report. We have three speakers signed up and all three of them can come to the front pew and speak. We have Kathy Affirmant, Zachary Bishop and Mr. Saco.
Speaker 4: Good evening, councilors. My name is Kathy Offerman. I'm here with Mike Cisneros on behalf of the applicants of the JCC metropolitan districts.
Speaker 0: I don't have any independent comments, but I'm.
Speaker 4: Available for questions. Should the Council have any?
Speaker 0: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Zachary Bishop. Good evening. I'm Zach Bishop with D.A. Davidson and Company. We are bankers for the Metropolitan District located at 1600 Broadway and also just here available for questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.
Speaker 7: Germans say Ku Klux Arts Movement Self-defense advocates for poor, working, poor and homeless people. Metropolitan districts. We require a lot of research and study. Especially when they're being organized and sponsored by corporations. And if you don't have strong community support in education, then what you will have happen is that a superimposed authority, quasi judicial, who can tax commercial and private properties through the House written up. And I haven't seen the write up in terms of how this thing is going to operate, operate because you have to create a board that's going to control this thing, say. And when you get to talk about how the board is going to be appointed or elected and how the community is going to be involved in that in terms of selection of the people who are going to participate in this thing. And then it's a hidden tax because most people don't even know they're in metropolitan districts who are in metropolitan districts because most of the citizens don't either look at this stuff going on down here or is explained to them thoroughly what this is going to happen before it gets on the ballot. And then they missed it. And then it pops up in the text and they say, What is this? And then it becomes the law. Because you didn't participate, because you weren't paying attention, because you was watching a baseball game. When these kind of decisions are being made, that's going to impact you for the next 20 years. 20 years. And you don't even know these people here. You don't even know him. You haven't even been in the corporations to see what their community involvement has been historically. And you're going to pass this. You've already made up your mind to do it. I know you're going to do it. And that's okay. Because one thing I've learned from coming here for three and a half years is that I had to learn tolerance. There were things that I was going to have to accept that I hated, and yet I'd have to tolerate it because of the misinformation and education of the masses of people. They wouldn't understand what I was talking about anyway, and what he was just talking about was so garbled and mixed up with folks who had happy. Y'all don't even know what he was talking about.
Speaker 1: Mr. Speaker, you.
Speaker 7: Say with this.
Speaker 1: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your time.
Speaker 7: Support this thing just on the strength of tolerance.
Speaker 1: Until the people wake up to this. Thank you. That concludes our speakers for Council Bill five of two. Do we have any questions for members of council? Starting with council members?
Speaker 2: Yes. CAMERON Well, I'm sorry I stepped down and you may have already talked about this, but I'd love to get kind of a grander vision of what you guys hope to accomplish here on the site. You talked a little about commercial, but I don't know if some some visioning has been done. And maybe you can go into that a little bit. A little. The answer to your question is a little bit. Sorry. I'm trying to see if I can make that this image a little bit bigger. But the the site is is for a variety of reasons, got a number of restrictions that will stay in place that will prohibit residential use, agricultural use. So commercial use is the is the principal use. And we really think, given its location at the really the crossroads of I-70 and I-25, that it's a fabulous opportunity for Denver and Adams County to build new warehouse logistics distribution, flex new modern manufacturing. So I would I would really describe it as a business park. And then the site layout itself is actually dictated to some extent by that grade differential, where the Adams County site is almost 35 to 40 feet higher than the Denver County side. So the infrastructure almost starts to lay itself out. But the way I would describe it is sort of akin to Stapleton Business Center or Compaq or other large, you know, commercial business parks in the metro area. The nice thing about this one is, is it's right in central Denver where we're losing a lot of that opportunity to years. But it's exciting to get some light in manufacturing capacity. What's the zoning on this? It's today the zoning is it's got four zoning districts because it's got two in Denver and two in Adams County. In the old code, I would sort of call it eye to. Yeah, well, on the Adams County side, there will be a pudi that'll overlay that zoning. But we're really focused on clean, modern manufacturing logistics distribution. And we think that the other thing that's nice about this site is it's got some the potential for some very large parcels where you can build some some 300,000 or larger square foot buildings, which is kind of unique for central Denver.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Montero.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'll just I'll ask this question and then you guys can figure out who who should take it. So let's talk about the election and who's going to pay for the election. When is the election for the metro districts? And then who gets to vote?
Speaker 4: Looks like he's gonna like Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 0: I'm happy to respond to those questions. Garcia from Anthem. Mickey D's for.
Speaker 4: Should the service plans be approved by both city.
Speaker 0: And county of Denver and Adams County? We're gearing up for a November 2014 election.
Speaker 4: The electors of the districts will be.
Speaker 0: Qualified by the property owner.
Speaker 4: The district is consist the district boundaries consist of only, while the service area consists of only the 77 acres, which is our commercial property.
Speaker 0: So in order to vote in an election, they will be qualified by the property owner, which at that time will be Global One LLC.
Speaker 6: Okay. So this is I just want to want to clarify that city of Denver, across the board will not be voting on these two particular metro districts. Right. How many property owners will be voting.
Speaker 0: At this point? There will be only one property owner. That would be Globeville, one LLC, we anticipate at the time of the election, and that is also the only property owner that will be subject to any taxes of the district. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Montero. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. So the first one is, can you, Cameron, tell me where the entrance to the site will be? I'm assuming that there will be access points both from Adams County and Denver, Kelly.
Speaker 2: You bet. And is it is it possible to put this back on the screen?
Speaker 1: I'm secretary of the department.
Speaker 2: Oh, it is on the screen, is it? Sorry. There you go. So I tried to make that one image just a little bit larger, if that helps, folks. So the two main entrances to this site will very likely be 52nd Avenue, which is the county line on the south. Yep. Because that will come in if. I don't know if you can see my cursor. Yeah. That will come in right in the middle of the lower what I call the lower pad because that everything to the left of this road right here, all this area is about 35 feet lower than everything up here. So this is larger. Adams County area will very likely enter off of 55th Avenue, where we expect through the pad process to install a new traffic light. So 55th Avenue will see those larger buildings on the north end and then 51st and 52nd will feed the traffic and the low and the smaller and medium sized buildings on the south end.
Speaker 6: So do you expect the the development on the south side of 52nd Avenue to look and feel any different than the development that will be on the north side?
Speaker 2: I think it will in that the nature of the buildings are necessarily probably different right there. Those are 20 to 50, maybe 100,000 square foot buildings, whereas the buildings on the north side at least have the potential to be 150 to 300, even 500,000 square feet. So I definitely think there's an architectural difference there and a use difference. That being said, we have we are imposing a set of design standards and architectural guidelines over the entire site so that will function and feel like a single cohesive business park.
Speaker 6: So I want to ask some financial questions and I'm not sure. Maybe here you might be the right person. So help me understand the cost sharing on the administrative cost to get us to this point. And then what is any of the cost sharing look like as the revenue is being generated? I mean, you know, just looking at the map alone, you could see that you're going to have bigger buildings on the north side. Obviously, there's more land in the Adams County side. So how does that work?
Speaker 2: I think I understand the question. So by cost sharing, you mean infrastructure cost across the site relative to where then where the income is generated? Right. Got it. So to answer your first question from the cost, not only to get us here, but the cost to where we're going will be financed entirely by Global One LLC, in part through assistance from the HUD one away alone. So we do have some financing tools that help us spend what will ultimately be more than $10 million, both to bring the site to this point, but also build all the infrastructure that you see on this on this page. The Metropolitan District, on a day in which these buildings are built and taxes are generated, we hope will be able to issue debt to reimburse those costs in the future. But they are not going to be financed by the Metropolitan District on day one. Globeville one will advance those funds and hope to be repaid.
Speaker 6: And what was the amount of the Hudson-Odoi loan?
Speaker 2: It's a maximum outstanding principal balance of $10 million.
Speaker 6: Okay. So one last question and this is about the the tax increment piece. So it's my understanding that Doura is playing that role and I see Tracy in the audience for the entire property. Correct. So does that function in the same way then in terms of cost share, all of that associated with where the taxes are being generated and where they're going to be applied in terms of offsetting any of the infrastructure costs or any of those things?
Speaker 2: You would think so. So that the answer to your question is yes. The the urban renewal area covers the entire site and is sort of agnostic as to where revenues are generated and where costs are needed because we're trying to redevelop the entire site. So it is truly regional cooperation. And in that regard, I did want to be clear, though, that the purpose of of the urban renewal area in the tax increment area that has been approved so far. Was to backstop that had 108108 loan. And so as we sit here today, we, we don't actually believe that we will need to utilize tax increment to repay that loan, which is great news. Okay.
Speaker 6: So, so given that it was created as a Doura district, that typically when Doura participates in these projects, there are some administrative costs that are reimbursed back to Doura. Is that going to be handled like they're typically done with this project? So Tracy, I'm looking at you. Do you want to come forward and just elaborate on that?
Speaker 0: Good afternoon, members. Good evening, members of council. I'm Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. The answer is yes. To the extent that there are administrative expenses incurred by Doura, it is the developer's responsibility to reimburse those costs that are incurred.
Speaker 6: Which may or may not happen.
Speaker 0: I understand there have been some costs already incurred and already reimbursed, so they are doing what they're supposed to do.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. Thank you. That answers all of my questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I have two additional questions. The the first one is, why is in viral finance not able are future developers able to build residential on the parcels in the city and county of Denver? And then the second one is maybe you can answer. It also is, can you share with my colleagues the public outreach efforts that you have gone through? Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yvette. To the to the first question, it it dates back to first and foremost, the legal answer is there's an environmental covenant that is restricts uses on the site. It was put in place by CDP. She at the time that CDP and EPA were imposing on then Asarco as the owner the cleanup standards that today we're implementing and it's fairly simple it is while we are remediating remediating the site to an end to a commercial industrial standard where it will be safe for people to work on the site and build buildings on the site and construct buildings on the site. The cleanup standards don't meet those for a residential development. It would not be you would not want children, you know, playing vegetables, growing. It really is that straightforward. And it is not a choice that Denver had. It's not a choice that Globeville one had. It was imposed by EPA and CDP. And it is it is the law of the land is where the site is regard is is regarded with regard to public outreach. It really goes back, almost to my knowledge, as early as 2007, there was a lot of public outreach both around the clean up of the site and the property around the site, then surrounding the creation of the urban renewal area, then surrounding the passage of the HUD 108 loan. Globeville one EFC is a company, has met at times quarterly, but always at least biannually with with the community to update them both on the status of the clean up answer questions about the trucks that were driving in and out of the community and what was going on there. And then most recently about the development plans and the creation of this metropolitan district, we had a meeting, as you know, because you were there the as recently as last month surrounding the Pudi on the Adams County side. So we I haven't counted them up, but I'm sure it's north of 20 or 30 and I'm sure there will be that many more to come as we develop the site.
Speaker 6: And then with two months ago that the Globeville Neighborhood Planning Steering Committee, we did a bus tour. Yeah. And yelled and talked for about this is like 45 minutes about about the development there on the site.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's it's a it's a it's been a long time coming. But this this neighborhood really has gotten very involved. I think that they they really do understand what caused the contamination. They understand what we're doing to to clean it up. And they're excited to be moving into the to the to the point in time at which it gets gets redeveloped and and the buildings can be built and jobs can be created.
Speaker 6: The only other thing that I just want to clarify is I just want to ask the question can can housing be built on this property?
Speaker 2: Housing cannot be built on this property.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Councilmember, you said something mean. Did you want to.
Speaker 2: Oh, just going to have camera make sure that all the acronyms that he was describing.
Speaker 1: Colorado Department of.
Speaker 2: Oh, got it. Yeah. I'm sorry. So, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, CDP, Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. See, EPA has given its authority to CDP to oversee us as we clean the site. Housing and Urban Development, thousands of viewers. Yes. Even give that. Yeah. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Gotham Councilwoman Lyman, for bringing that up. Any other questions from members of council and seen the public hearing for Final Two is closed now? Time for comments from members of Council Council Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you so much for your presentation this evening. As was mentioned, we've been talking about the Asarco site for four years and I then I choose to count. But in this in this particular situation, I'm very excited about the cooperative agreement and partnership between Adams County in the city of Denver. The majority of this property is in Adams County. And as I understand it, they're probably going through a similar review for their service plans around this situation. This particular project has a possibility on the Denver site. I sound so territorial and the city and county of Denver to create a possibility of between 350 and 400 jobs and on the Adams count and around 1500 to 2000 on the whole site, including Adams County, that depends on the density and the development. But also we'll focus on middle skill and middle wage jobs in this in the city of Denver. In my opinion, there's a huge need for light manufacturing in industrial locations in the city, since many of the operations have been taken up by another industry. As far as the locations in Council District nine, the industrial park areas, as was shared with me, have the lowest vacancy rates to date. And on this particular site, the facilities will be modernized industrial areas, making them even more attractive to to the Globeville area. So I wholeheartedly support advancing this forward and ask for the support of my colleagues as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I want to also express my support for this project moving forward. I think having known much of the history of this site and worked with these neighborhoods back when it was actually an operating smelter and lived through the whole process with the neighborhood and the whole CDP, you know, process of of cleaning up the neighborhood and working with EPA and, you know, looking at the cleanup that really went beyond the Globeville neighborhood, but realizing that there's an interested party that is wanting to do this development and has taken the steps to remove the buildings which in themselves required significant cleanup. This is exciting for these neighborhoods, creating the opportunity for employment. Looking at a site that has sat there as a vacant, sort of abandoned parcel that really wasn't contributing to the community at all in creating these new opportunities for something that will look nice in the neighborhood, that will add the jobs, stimulate our economy for not only that area, but for the city of Denver as a whole and in the interface with our neighbors to the north. So I think overall, this is really a great opportunity for Denver, and I appreciate the role that Dora has played in sort of brokering this between the two counties to help move it forward. And I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her role in working with the neighborhoods to make sure their voice was a part of the process throughout every step of the way. So with that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know if folks remember, but when we have the urban renewal area come through for this part of the city, during that process, one of the residents of this area said, you know, industrial, you don't need more industrial. That's how we got into this spot in this neighborhood. And I think it's such a testament to Councilwoman Montero's leadership and the outreach of EFC that we now have residents excited about the jobs, because I think we've really educated folks about the way that, you know, I always say from my mother's factory, right, that that modern manufacturing doesn't have the same environmental impacts if it's well planned and well designed for high quality, you know, high input, low, low output kind of production. So I'm excited about the potential and I'm so pleased and so appreciative of your leadership and the level of community support that we have for this use. My one favor to ask is that since this may be our last time to see you for this project before you go out and flourish, is that please hold out for the manufacturing over the warehousing warehouse is great. It takes up huge stretches of land. It's important for getting products to market very few jobs per square foot. And so please don't jump at the first tenants if they are, you know, distribution warehouse, please hold out for some of that higher intensity employment if you can, because it would be really great to see the higher end of those estimates rather than the lower end. So if that's possible in the market, if it does, it have a real spur. If it did, it would be perfect. We have so many employers who need that, but the great transportation asset access should be an asset even without rail. So thank you very much. And I'm very enthusiastically supportive of this district tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Canete. See no other comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 0: Montero by Neville.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Ortega I, Rob Brooks.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: But I can eat lemon lopez.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
Approves the Service Plan for the formation and establishment of the GCC (Globeville Commerce Center) Metropolitan District No.1 northwest of Washington Street and 51st Avenue in Council District 9. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves the Service Plan for the formation and establishment of the GCC (Globeville Commerce Center) Metropolitan District No.1 northwest of Washington Street and 51st Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-17-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06232014_14-0498
|
Speaker 0: We have two proclamations. This evening. I would like to call on Councilwoman Fox to read proclamation number 498.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 14 498 in recognition of Dale Carnegie upon the occasion of her retirement. Whereas Dale Caskey was hired by the Denver Police Department as a patrol officer on January 1st, 1982. And. Whereas, Dale served for three years as a Denver police officer and during her tenure was severely injured in the line of duty in September 1983. And. Whereas, Dale was hired by the Agency for Human Rights and Community Relations on January three, 1985, as a community relations consultant and worked as Dale Service Dog Perseverance, also known as Percy, has the distinction of being the first service animal in the state of Colorado in 1984. And. Whereas, in 1985, Dale, with Percy on her side, testified before the state legislature to create laws for service dog access. And that year the legislation was created, passed and signed into law by Governor Richard D Lamm. And where whereas I worked with the former manager of safety. Beth McCann to create the Denver Disability Parking Enforcement Program in 1993, helping to ensure disabled parking access and enforcement for people living with disabilities and where it has since the program's inception. Dale Caskey, as the coordinator of the Disability Parking Enforcement Program, has trained and supervised 40 volunteers advocating for the rights of people living with disabilities. And. Whereas, on June 30th, 2014, Dale Caskey will retire as a full time employee from the Agency for Human Rights and Community Partnerships, fulfilling 32 years of dedicated service. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes Dale remarkable and inspirational. Constant contributions over the years and on behalf of Denver residents wishes her well in retirement. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Dale Caskey.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman, for your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move that the proclamation be adopted.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and multiply. Seconded comments. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. I am extremely proud that Dale is both a constituent and a friend. She has been a role model to me showing how you can overcome adversity and certainly in developing new areas of leadership. The handicapped parking regulation was really, I think, just a brainchild of Dale Caskey, and her goal has always been to help those who truly need the spaces be able to handle them. Not only did she deal with the with service dogs at the state legislature, there was a change in the state law that also regulated who and under what circumstances were able to get the handicapped parking stickers. And Dale was a true leader in that. I worked with her on that issue. And I feel that we made some some valuable changes at the state level because of her insight on this issue. It pains me to say that I wish her well in retirement because that means she's retiring. She is going to be used as a full time resource for me to rely on, as I have for so many years. But Dale, I know we won't be saying goodbye, and I truly hope you'll stay active with the Denver Denver's handicapped parking enforcement community. You cannot be replaced.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Pat's Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Dale, I just like to say it has been an incredible experience working with you. And every time we need to walk and talk, it is just.
Speaker 0: Enlightening.
Speaker 1: To me.
Speaker 5: And I would like to thank you for all you've done and know that you will continue doing it in so. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilwoman One Chair.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I also want to say hi, Dale. I remember the first time we met when I was a council aide, and I learned all about the commission from people with disabilities. And I truly believe that you and your leadership have really taken the level of community support. It's gone up. I just want to say that every time I've ever seen you, I always get so happy and you've just brought a light into the city, and I wish you all the very best. It's been my honor to be able to know you and call you when I have questions about handicapped parking or we have some problems that we need to resolve. One thing that's always been very, very important to me is that you've always been an advocate. And if people were parking where they weren't supposed to or they had somehow they had obtained a handicapped tag that they should know of, you were always just such an advocate, and you always did it in such a great way. So thank you so much and I wish you all the very best. And then to Percy, to I want to know if he's going to be sitting back in. Having a go with that?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Oh. Oh.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, I want to hear about it when you come to the microphone. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Madam President. I haven't worked with Dale as long as some of my colleagues have. But I know you through sending developers your way to think about public spaces and how we can make public spaces more accessible and think beyond just minimum ADA recommendations, which is how architects think and think more about serving people , which is how you think and you think on behalf of the city. So I appreciate those folks that you've met with on those issues. And also, I just wanted to thank your your partner behind every great woman. It's a support network and so really appreciate that you've you've had such a supportive family and hope that you get to enjoy them in your retirement.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Dale, I've known you a very, very long time. Back to when you were a Denver police officer. And I just want to say thank you for all your years of service to the citizens of the city of Denver, both as a police officer and in your work at the Commission on Disabilities. I think lots of lives have benefited from your hard work, and I wish you Godspeed in your retirement. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. And it looks like we're ready for roll call, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Fox.
Speaker 4: Hi, Herndon. I can eat Lemon Lopez. ALL Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd Brown, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. And we have Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Carlos, close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilwoman Fox. Is there somebody you'd like to ask up to the podium?
Speaker 5: I would very much like to hear from Dale Kosky.
Speaker 0: We've got a portable microphone here.
Speaker 5: And they are some might not have been able to hear about Kokomo. So if you'd also introduce Kokomo.
Speaker 0: Okay. This is Kokomo. She's my fourth dog. They don't live as long as I do. So but and all of them have just been so valuable to me. First of all, I want to thank career service for 29 years that they took a risk on me. I really didn't know what I was doing when I was coming into human rights community partnership. And they they dared to go and take that risk with me. And I couldn't do this all alone. I just had great support. My partners in human rights, community partnerships, my church community, all the coworkers that have dealt with me and with the departments that I work with, and that's traffic engineering right away, enforcement and the court system. They've been great. And I want to give thanks to the legislation, the state legislators, for going in the service dog bill. And that's where I first met Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Ford is that I'm sitting at the head of that that committee and I didn't even know that she was my city council or my state legislature then and then later became my city councilwoman. I'd give her a hard time because I tell her I'm her something Democrat. And. So and then I've got to give recognition to the organizations that go and train people that train puppies and then get advanced training for the service dogs, because they've really been a lifeline to me and to so many other people . You know, in when I was first injured about 31 years ago, it'll be 31 years in September. I really lost a lot and I didn't know the amount that I lost. But the first time that I ever cried was when the police department came and forced me to retire. And it wasn't from losing a leg. It wasn't from losing independence. It was from losing that. And. Since that time. I'll tell you, God and I have gotten into it. I mean, we've gone round and round and and with the whys and everything else, and we've gotten in wrestling matches. And, you know, sometimes God, even you think I win on the whole thing. And sometimes we're on we're not on speaking terms. And and, you know, I think the things that I think that's okay. But the one thing that I have never stopped talking to God about or never stopped thanking God and thanking God and thanking God , and that has been for the public support. I mean, it is just I've seen a side of the public that a lot of police don't see, and that was just people coming out of the woodwork and they still do. And that support has meant everything. And I have been extremely lucky to have worked with the public, to have worked for the public, and that has been an extreme blessing to me. And is it awesome, right. And responsibility. And it's one that all of us have everybody on council gets to do it and to to great public, to everybody here, to the police here, that they get to work for the public. And I feel truly blessed. And like I said, I continuously thank God for that and I thank you for allowing me to work with the city that way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Very moving. We have another proclamation, and I'd like to call on Councilwoman Shepard to read proclamation number 527.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in recognition of Dale Coski upon the occasion of her retirement. A proclamation in recognition of Dale Coski upon the occasion of her retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06232014_14-0527
|
Speaker 0: And like I said, I continuously thank God for that and I thank you for allowing me to work with the city that way. Thank you. Thank you very much. Very moving. We have another proclamation, and I'd like to call on Councilwoman Shepard to read proclamation number 527.
Speaker 1: With with pleasure, Madam President. Proclamation 527 series of 2014 designating the week of June 23rd through June 27th as Bike Week, and Wednesday, June 25th as Bike to Work Day in Denver. Whereas the city and County of Denver partners with the Denver Regional Council of Governments, local bicycling, bicycling organizations and cycling enthusiasts each year to plan activities and events intended to promote bicycling. And. Whereas, Bike to Work Day is an annual event designed to encourage people to ride bicycles for transportation consistently, to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and benefit public health. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works hosts the Civic Center Park Breakfast Station, one of the largest in the region where cyclists celebrate their commute to work with free snacks, raffle prizes, music and educational outreach offered by the bicycling organizations. And. Whereas, Registration for Bike to Work Day by staff of the city and county of Denver has more than doubled from 2013, with 400 registrants and growing for the 2014 event. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works is a major contributor in the planning and implementation of Denver's bicycle infrastructure, adding at least 15 miles of new bikeways annually, and this year installing Denver's first protected bikeway on 15th Street downtown with vertical separation between bikes and cars. DPD Denver Public Works plans to install more protected bike lanes are contributing to Denver's rank as a top bicycling, bicycling city and its inclusion in the National People for Bikes Green Lane Project. And. Whereas, the city now has more than 140 miles of on street bike lanes and SROs and more than 100 miles of off street trails , offering recreational opportunity along scenic routes and is in the midst of closing a major missing link in Denver's Bike Network with the new pedestrian and bike bridge across I-25 to the Colorado Center and light rail station. And. Whereas, Denver is supporting bicycling in other new and creative ways, testing for the first time this year the viability of on straight on street bike corrals and bike sharing stations where people gather with the goal of supporting local businesses and making bike riding more attractive for Denver's residents. And. Whereas, bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure continues to be a top priority for the Denver City Council of the City and County of Denver, which is supporting funding for additional and expedited multimodal improvements that will increase bicycling in our city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council, the City and County of Denver, Section one that the by the council designates the week of June 23rd through June 27th as Bike Week and June 25th as Bike to Work Day Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affects the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy here to be forwarded to the manager of Public Works.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Shepard. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I move that proclamation 527 series of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I am pleased to once again be asked to read this proclamation and sponsor it, which gives me great pleasure, because as folks who know the work that I do well know that I am absolutely committed to increasing ability and walkability both in my district and across the city and county of Denver. It is imperative that we give our residents every option possible to not have to have a car and to be able to move through our city. And that, you know, contributes, obviously, to reducing our carbon footprint, helps public health outcomes, puts more eyes on the street and and can long term lead to some easing, I hope, of our parking problems. But this is this day on Wednesday of this week is a particularly great day that we have a chance to, you know, all get in our spandex or or not don our helmets and ride down into the city. And as you may know, there's many free breakfast stations and snack bars along these routes. So I encourage folks who are going to be participating to avail themselves of all the free food and other activities that are organized around this event, especially at seven. Senator Park. But I also want to say that this is just, you know, one day and one week that we celebrate. But we've really made tremendous strides during this council term on really increasing safety, comfort, connectivity and infrastructure for cyclists in the city and county of Denver. In 2013, this very body voted to make that the number one priority. And because of the advocacy that we did, we were able to get additional planners and engineers designated into public works department to work on increasing our bicycle network. And I want to thank all of my colleagues, the mayor's office and also public works for teaming together and collaborating together to reach that goal. And I did mention earlier in the proclamation that we were chosen in a very competitive process with other cities this year as one of six to participate in the Green Lanes Project. Our first thing that we've done in that project is to install that vertically buffered, protected bikeway on 15th Avenue, which is all of you know, is an extremely busy street with a lot of traffic, a lot of turning movements, busses, but also bikes. So that extra vertical protection, you should go out and try it if you haven't had a chance to do it yet, because it really, you know, even though it wouldn't keep a car from coming into the lane, it makes the cyclists feel safer and gives a lot more predictability to both the cyclists and the motorists about where , you know, each mode user is supposed to be on the street. And I and I encourage you to try it if you haven't had a chance. And lastly, I'll just say, you know, cycling is is fun and it's a great way to connect with community members. And so I hope that folks will not only try it this week, but, you know, at several other times during the summer. Do you happen to have that photo? So this is a funny photo. But let me let me explain the reason why I'm posting this today. So many of you know that we've got the heads up campaign happening right now, which is an education campaign targeted for all mode users to both be aware and alert while they are driving, walking or cycling or skateboarding or what have you both for their own safety and to be looking out for the other mode users on the trail. So I just want to say that this morning I was biking actually on the bike and pedestrian path at Crown Hill Park and I came across this mode user who was cruising down the bike path at zero miles an hour. He's obviously a fairly vulnerable user because of his size, so I just want everyone to head's up lookout. Be careful. You'll never know exactly who else you might be sharing the road with. Now, at least this stately gentleman has his helmet on. So I do encourage everyone who's going to participate in bike to work day activities this week to be very safe and wear your helmets and look out for the other vulnerable users who might be sharing the trails with you and the roads. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Looks like we are ready for the roll call.
Speaker 4: Shepherd I Brown Fats I Herndon can each laman lopez. Monteiro Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary. Close to voting now to results for Vice 12 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. California shivered. Is there anyone you'd like to ask up to the podium?
Speaker 1: You know, forgive me. I'm not sure who the recipient is. I don't. Oh, Emily Center. There she is. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Emily Snider from the Public Works. She's our bike and pedestrian planner in the city and she's magnificent. Good evening. Madam President, members of council, thank you again for the proclamation on Bike to Work Week and Bike to Work Day. We're excited about another successful year leading up to this. We've had several milestones in this city. Councilman Shepherd mentioned our protected bike lane on 15th Street just this month. We've also implemented our on street bicycle wayfinding signage that provides destination direction and distance.
Speaker 5: Based.
Speaker 1: Signage for cyclists out there on our streets with partners on councils such as Councilman Leavitt's office and some of our merchants associations. We've also installed the first on street bicycle parking corral in which we've taken one bicycle, one car parking space and made it available for 12 bicycle parking spaces and with other members of the community, such as the downtown Denver Partnership and bike Denver. We've made it more than just this Wednesday those to. Asians have been working on a campaign called Bike to Work Wednesdays and getting more people on bikes more often. But I think the biggest thing that I wanted to recognize this year is the increase in staff participation. As the proclamation mentions, we have doubled the enrollment in to work day by city staff and that would not have been possible without one of our new bike planners, Rachel Bronson, who really spearheaded an efforts of many organized representatives from many different departments across the city, very enthusiastic people and staff that have committed their agencies and encouraged their agencies to participate on that day. So it's a great thing for us to encourage all of the cyclists in Denver to participate in Bike to Work Day. But I was thrilled that we have even more representation from the city. So thank you very much. And we look forward to your continued support and getting more people on bikes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Emily. Okay, that's moving on. Let's move on to resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating the week of June 23 through June 27 as “Bike Week” and Wednesday, June 25, as “Bike to Work Day” in Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06162014_14-0370
|
Speaker 3: Why, certainly, Madam President, I move that council bill 37 be placed on the floor upon final consideration. Do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 370 is open. May we have the staff report, Mr. Neely?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Members of Council. This is an official zone map amendment or rezoning. At 8175 East Lowry Boulevard. The request has risen from P3 with waivers to see AM x three. The subject site is located in East Denver in Council District five in the Lowry Field neighborhood, also referenced as the Lowry neighborhood. The subject site itself is on Lowry Boulevard between Rampart and until way is two acres and is owned by the Hospice of Metro Denver. The representative representative of Jonathan, who has the property under contract. Both of them are here tonight. The request again is free zone from V3 with waivers to see x3c mixed freeze urban center neighborhood context. MLK stands for mixed use and three means a maximum of three stories is allowed existing context the zoning for the surrounding site there see max five there see max eight there's open space and b three with waivers in the general vicinity. Building heights range from 1 to 3 stories. The primary and side street setbacks are minimal in the immediate area. Typically, the parking is to the side or the rear of the structures or under the structures. This is a land use, existing land use map. As you can see, the site is vacant. There's residential, multifamily, residential behind the site office retail commercial to the southwest. It's across the street from the open space and then along Academy Boulevard, entertainment culture, cultural lesson. So the top picture is a picture of the site itself. In the foreground is the vacant site. In the background is the multifamily hangar lofts. The picture below that would be a medical office. But the bottom picture is the hospice of Denver process to date went to planning board on April 16th where they unanimously recommended approval, went to a ludy May 6th, your council on the 13th, first reading on the 19th of May and we're here tonight. Public outreach today notification was sent to all RINO's. Throughout the process, signs were posted on the property announcing planning board and announcing this public hearing tonight. One letter of support was received from Lowry United Neighbors, and that should be in your packet. There are five review criteria in the Denver zoning code. The first is consistency, with adopted plans for three plans relate to the subject site. Plan 2000 recommends promoting infill development and mixed use communities, increasing density and more amenities that broadens the variety of compatible uses. Blueprint Denver recommends employment for this site. Employment areas contain office warehousing, light manufacturing, high tech industries. SIMEX three would allow all of those uses. It is within an area of change and all of Lowry is within an area of change. In fact, there are three area types of areas of change in Blueprint Denver. There's downtown, there's Lowry, Stapleton and Gateway, which were all large. Large infill sites within Denver and then other areas of change where land use and transportation are closely linked. So this falls into our blueprint. Denver talks at length about the redevelopment of the Lowry site and rezoning to see who makes three will implement those recommendations. Lowry Boulevard This reclassification as a mixed use arterial. The Lowry reuse plan adopted in 1993 prior to Blueprint Income Plan recommends employment campus calls for educational, cultural, recreational, business and training uses. SIMEX three will allow all of those uses, and the urban design recommendations include creating an urban setting and eliminating or mitigating the negative visual impacts associated with large re-use or redevelopment of sites such as visible parking. Cemex three requires that there is no parking between the street and the building. It is required to be to the side or rear or under or within foot. So he finds that this rezoning is consistent with adaptive plans. He finds the development of the civic site under Cemex three will result in the uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. CVD finds rezoning to Cemex three will further the public health, safety and welfare of the city through the implementation of adopted plans, the justifying circumstances as a change or changing condition. CV CV defines this criterion is met as the rezoning will allow the continued transition of the area change and implementation of adopted plans. The changes and new investment occurring in the Lowry area justify updated zoning that will encourage redevelopment consistent with adopted plans, and the proposed rezoning would lead to development that is consistent with the neighborhood context, description and zoned district purpose and intent based on the Denver Zoning Code criteria for review. CBD recommends approval for this rezoning.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Nelly. We have two speakers, Mr. Bob Gallagher.
Speaker 3: Madam President, members of council. Good evening. My name is Bob Garlic. My address is 609 South Galen Street in Denver. I am here this evening representing a hospice of Metro Denver, the property owner for this map amendment. This is kind of interesting. This is one of the first two sites we re zoned that Lowry in the mid 1990s. And here we are coming back almost 20 years later. The strategy we used at that time for zoning property was to select the handful of uses that we thought might develop over time and eliminate the rest of them through waivers. So while this is a senior housing project, senior housing is permitted in the B three. We didn't wave that out, but assisted living was waived out. And so our project has a memory care component to it, which we need the assisted living for. So that's what brings us here tonight. We think that this is a very, very good use for this area. It's a very compatible use with hospice, which is right next door as well as some of the other residential areas. This is a very low traffic generator, very quiet use, just appropriate for this particular site. We started with the CSX five because the zoning next to us is already a mixed five. But after meetings with neighborhood groups, specifically Lowry United Neighbors, they suggested that we drop it to see Max three, which we did, and that resulted in a letter of support from their R and oh. So we have unanimous support from the planning board, from CPD and a letter of support from Laureen and neighbors. And I ask you for your support as well, and I'll answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 2: But thank you, Mr. Gorelick. Jonathan Griffis.
Speaker 3: Madam Chair, members of the Council, my name is Jonathan Griffiths.
Speaker 1: I live at 1374 East Kaylee Drive in Centennial, Colorado. I am a principal of Buccaneer Development. We are the developer of the project.
Speaker 3: And we are buying the property from the hospice of Denver, as you've heard here previously. Our plan is for a two story building that would be dedicated to the use of assisted living and memory care.
Speaker 1: We're still finalizing the site.
Speaker 3: Plan, but we're looking at somewhere between.
Speaker 1: 75 and.
Speaker 3: 90 units total.
Speaker 1: The site is basically the.
Speaker 3: Density of the site is driven by the parking requirements. As you all well know, and whatever the ultimate number of units that we decide to develop for the entire project will be self parked on our site. So we are excited about the opportunity here. We think it's a great use for the property and I appreciate your your review and approval of it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Mr.. Has questions from counsel. And seeing none. I'm going to close the public hearing and take comments by members of council. I urge my council members to vote for this. This is a very appropriate use for the area which they are going to develop and has the support of the neighborhoods. And I thank you for your good work with the neighborhoods. Okay. Moved and seconded. Any other comments? Don't see any. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 0: Madam President, high growth from our father. I heard in I can eat. Layman Lopez. Monteiro Nevitt. I Ortega. I Rob. I Shepherd.
Speaker 2: I Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. 30 Nice. 13 Eyes. The zoning is passed. Congratulations. All right, our next hearing is Councilman Books. Will you please put Council Bill 371 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. Check one. Yeah. Yes, Madam President. I put Council Bill 371 on the floor to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 8175 Lowry Boulevard from B-3 with waivers to C-MX-3 in Council District 5. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 8175 Lowry Boulevard from B-3 with waivers (Commercial Retail) to Urban Center Mixed-Use three stories (C-MX-3) in Council District 5. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-6-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06162014_14-0371
|
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. Check one. Yeah. Yes, Madam President. I put Council Bill 371 on the floor to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 371 is open. Mr. Nelly with this report.
Speaker 3: All right, Stephen, Ali, once again, CPD, this is an official zone map amendment at 5141 North Chambers Road. The proposal is to rezone from 561 to SCC three. This is a legislative rezoning process. This may look familiar to you all. Back in February, you did initiate the motion and adopt a resolution to rezone this site. We you charged or directed CPD to come up with the zone district and process of rezoning as if this was applicant driven. And we have done that. Went to a planning board on April 16th where the planning board unanimously recommended approval to Ludie on the 6th of May. Your council on the 13th. First reading on the 19th. Then we're here tonight. Public outreach notification was sent to Arnaud's. Throughout the process, signs were posted on the property for planning board and for this public hearing. And because this was a legislative rezoning, we did do a direct mailing to all affected property owners. And an example or a sample of that letter is in your packet but went to one of the property owners. So this rezoning is in East Denver in Council District 11, located in the Montebello neighborhood, getting down on to the site. It's on the corner of Gateway Avenue and Chambers Road. It's over 14 acres. There are five property owners on the site. The proposal is to rezone from Denver 561 to seek three SCC three as a suburban commercial corridor, allowing up to three stories zone district. The property 561 was adopted in 2004. That PD replaced PD 370, which was originally adopted in 1993. And the reason for that change in 2004 was just to allow one use which was appropriate on the site and in order to have the site evolve over time. It doesn't seem appropriate to rezone the site every time a new user comes in. Dispute is broken up into multiple sub areas. One of those sub areas allows basically two uses and rezoning to SCC. Three would have a consistent useless across the entire site. So the existing context zoning in the surrounding area is former Chapter 59, R one and R two. Those are low density residential zoned districts. Both have a weaver's and it's surrounded also by. So the building form and scale is consistent with the general and the urban house. Suburban house zoning forms in the zoning code heights range from 1 to 2 stories. These are very large setbacks that you would find in the suburban context. Typically, there's parking between the primary structure and the street. Here's an existing land use map. As you can see, it's commercial and retail on the site, surrounded by single family homes. And then across chambers is more commercial and retail. So top left is a photo of the site. Top right is the first left photos from Gateway Avenue. The photo on the right is from Chambers Road and then the photo on the bottom left is the surrounding single family. So because this is a legislative rezoning, there are only three review criteria. First is consistency with adopted plans for plans that apply to the site complete in 2000. Again, promoting infill development and mixed use communities. Blueprint Denver The land use concept is neighborhood center, and the goal of that land use concept is to serve the many every day shopping service or entertainment needs of one or more neighborhoods. A mix of land uses includes those for convenience, shopping, personal services and restaurants. As you see for FCC three excuse me, will accommodate those uses. This is an area of stability, and a goal is to maintain the character of that of that area, but still accommodating some new development and redevelopment. And SCC three will maintain that character and allow some development, some new development to occur over time. Features Classifications. Gateway is a residential collector and Chambers is a residential arterial. The Gateway Concept Plan was adopted in 1990 and it calls this site out as that should be neighborhood retail parks, open space and a town center. De Montebello Green Valley Ranch neighborhood plan adopted in 1991, also calls this site out as a as the chambers. Place shopping center or town square. So CBD finds rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. CBD finds the development of the subject site under ac3. Zoning will result in the uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations and CBD finds it will further the public health, safety and welfare of the city through the implementation of the city's adaptive plan. So based on the criteria for review, CBD recommends approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much personally. There are no speakers signed up for this bill. Are there questions by counsel? And seeing now, I'm going to close the hearing and ask for comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon, did you want to make comment?
Speaker 3: I did. Thank you, Madam President. Steve did a great job of explaining this and communities such as Mom Bell, established communities. We do want to bring businesses to those communities and it would help if the zoning was less restrictive. And in this case, this is a perfect example where we can do that, maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, as well as bring possibility for more opportunities in the community. So I would certainly encourage my colleagues to support this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And seeing no other comments, madam secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Herndon.
Speaker 2: I can eat lemon lopez.
Speaker 0: Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt. I got robbed by Shepard Brooks. Hi, Brown. Hi.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam President. I am Councilman Brooks. Councilman Brooks. He got it. Oh, he did it. Oh, good. Sorry. I'm looking at you and not my screen. So sorry. Madam Secretary, close of voting. Announced results. 13, nine, 13 eyes. The zoning is passed. Okay, we move on to the next hearing. Councilman Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 398 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I put Council Bill 398 on the floor and be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 5141 Chambers Road from PUD #561 to S-CC-3 in Council District 11. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 5141 Chambers Road from PUD #561 to Suburban Commercial Corridor three stories (S-CC-3) in Council District 11. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-6-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06162014_14-0398
|
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I put Council Bill 398 on the floor and be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. The second day of the public hearing for Council Bill 398 is open. Councilwoman Kennish, before I ask for the staff report. Would you like to put your amendment on the floor so that speakers may address the proposed amendment?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam President, I move that Council Bill 398, the amended in the following particulars on page two, line one, strike section five and insert a new Section five to read as follows. Section five The above changes to the Denver Zoning Code are reflected more fully in a document filed with the Denver City Clerk on June 13 , 2014 as City Council Clerk Filing Number 14 Dash 502. Translation When changes are made to our Denver zoning code, the ordinance language that council adopts is fairly barebones. We simply refer to a separate document that is filed with the clerk's office. For my colleagues, this is really similar to how we adopt contracts. The contract itself isn't in the ordinance. It just references a filing with the clerk's office. And so this amendment, the way that we make a change, is we change that document filed with the clerk's office. So what I am proposing is the new document that's filed with the clerk's office that's filing 502 will basically change the start time for residential sales in the ordinance that we're about to hear about from 7 a.m. and replace it with 8 a.m.. So the only thing that is being changed is the proposed time that sales would allow to begin, and that will be all reflected if you are in your council documents in the city's legislative system. You can see that change in the clerk filing. It's not going to be visible in the bill itself because the bill will only refer to the clerk filing number. So that's just to kind of orient you in where and how this is working. But the the the the outcome of the vote would be to change the hours to begin at 8 a.m. instead of seven. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilman CORNISH. Councilmembers will vote on that amendment at the conclusion of the speakers, in case any speaker wants to comment on that. So you can hold your comments until then. Okay. I have a.
Speaker 0: Point of order, madam. Madam President, may I. May I ask if one of my colleagues might want to second the amendment?
Speaker 2: It is seconded. I'm sorry. That is seconded on the screen. I guess we're ready for the staff report.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Madam President. And City Council. My name is Sarah Showalter. I'm a senior planner with the city's Department of Community Planning and Development. And I will give a quick staff presentation on the proposed ordinance tonight. As I think you all know, this is sponsored by a councilwoman, Robin Kmiec, and we also have co-sponsors, Susan Shepherd and Councilman Albus Brooks. We've also had great community support for this ordinance from the Mayor's Sustainable Food Policy Council, as well as the liberal Denver Regional Collaborative. From the purpose of the amendment before you tonight is essentially to allow Denver residents to sell fresh produce and a very limited range of cottage foods from their home. This would help align Denver's regulations with the State of Colorado Cottage Food Act, which passed in 2012. There's some great city goals and policies already in place that this would help implement, including the Mayor's 2020 sustainability goals would also help expand access to healthy, locally grown and affordable foods in Denver, as well as help build community by promoting neighbor to neighbor interactions. I'm a very quick summary here of the process that we've been through with this proposed amendment to the code beginning in very early 2014. Lots of meetings with registered neighborhood organizations are no's throughout the city, over 20 of them. We've also done informational updates to our planning board and City Council's Luti committee. Then we had a required public hearing before a planning board on May 7th, as well as a meeting in front of the committee on May 13th. We had a first reading by City Council on May 19th, and then of course, we're here tonight for a public hearing. And as was mentioned earlier, we will have a continuation of this public hearing on July four. With full notice for that for the rhinos. We have heard from 13 RINO's that have voted and taken a position on this proposed ordinance. Of the 13 that we heard from, ten voted to support it and three were opposed. Of the ten who voted to support two had recommendations and there actually the same recommendations for both of the organizations. One is to have a review of this home occupation one year after it's gone into effect. And that's something that the council sponsor, Councilwoman Kennedy, has already committed to do and bring back to council one year after it's been in effect. Another recommendation was to extend the starting time in the morning, so it's not quite as early. The recommendation was 10 a.m. There was a floor amendment that you just heard tonight to change the starting time from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. in response to that community input. So before I walk through the proposed changes, and that's part of this ordinance, just a very quick summary of what you can do in the code today. There's already a wide range of home occupations allowed in our residential zone districts throughout the city. That includes things like hair salons, offices. If you have a lawyer, an accounting office thing out of their home, child care, these are clearly incidental to the primary use of the residence and are specifically designed to have limitations on them to ensure that they don't detract from the quality of our neighborhoods. There are also a lot of provisions in our code already for being able to grow produce throughout the city, including at your home, and also some options already for being able to sell food that you might grow as a resident. For example, you could sell at a farmer's market, but currently today in the code, no provision to sell from your home. So the proposed change is kind of categorized into three different areas. The first one is to add a new home occupation that's called fresh produce and cottage foods sales. This would be subject to the same limitations as all of the other home occupations, and that does include obtaining a zoning permit for $20 in order to operate this there. This proposed home occupation would be allowed in all of the zoned districts and residential zoned districts in the city, except for two zone districts, the SFX and IRIS districts. These are districts that have historically been designed in their intent. Expressly in the code is to limit the number of home occupations in them, every other residential district. And the code today allows for 15 home occupations and these two districts only allow for four. So definitely intent there to keep them restricted in terms of home occupations. This map shows where those districts are. It's a very limited geographic area of the city, just some small areas in the southwest corner of Denver. The second change is to add some definitions of the code. So one would be to clearly define what this home occupation is. The second is to define cottage foods, and the definition essentially links right back to the Colorado Cottage Food Act, the state legislation. We've also included in the definition that our own, the City Department of Environmental Health, has the ability to take foods off the list if they feel that one of them were to become hazardous, or they had a concern about that. And we've also, specifically in the definition, made it clear that this doesn't include any marijuana or marijuana infused food products. And then the final category of change is to add some limitations that are specific to this home occupation. So one that we talked about earlier is the hours of sales which are being proposed tonight with the amendment to be 8 a.m. until dusk. Another is because sales could occur outdoors. There would be limitations on that. If you're selling outdoors, you have to use temporary, movable furniture, no permanent structure, and any visible evidence would have to be removed outside of the hours of operation. So essentially every evening, if you were setting up every day, you'd have to bring the furniture, an umbrella that you were using inside. And then, of course, all of the other home occupation limitations would apply to this, which include you can't have any employees who live off site and one very small window or a wall sign for street frontage. All of our proposed tax amendments to the Denver zoning code are reviewed against three basic criteria. One is consistency with the city's adopted plans and policies. This proposal. Mosul fulfills two different policies that we find in our comprehensive plan. 2001, under the category of land use, is about having flexible and accommodating land use regulations to allow future land use needs, such as home based businesses. And the second is allowing for a diverse range of uses in our neighborhoods, including home based businesses. And as I mentioned earlier, it also helps to fulfill the mayor's 2020 sustainability goal. And there's one specifically related to increasing the amount of food produced in Colorado, in Denver. And in terms of process, I did want to document that planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this ordinance to city council at their May 7th public hearing. They also asked Council to consider the possibility of allowing this home occupation and all zone districts, even the assets you affix in high zone districts. Council's Luti committee discussed that recommendation at their May 13th meeting, but decided not to make any recommended changes to this tax amendment. And we do find a staff that all of the criteria have been met and recommend approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Councilwoman Kanis, you had wanted to make a brief explanation at the beginning of this presentation. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam President, first of all, I wanted to identify we also have before us the Denver Environmental Health Department. Should there be any questions during the question and answer period regarding health or safety issues? Councilwoman Shepherd and myself will also be available during the question and answer period. Should there be any questions for us as sponsors that can't be handled by the staff? And lastly, for the public, I wanted to clarify why it is the Council won't be voting tonight. We have had numerous notices that Sarah described in the staff report, and so thousands of emails have gone out to the registered neighborhood organizations when the draft proposal was created, when the hearing occurred at planning board, when we set this public hearing as a council, we had notice of that in numerous newsletters of members of this council on neighborhood papers. But there is one email list to register neighborhood organizations where the email did not go out at the 21 days prior. That is the custom of the Council. The law varies on whether it needs to be ten or 15 days, but it's our view as sponsors that it's critical that we provide that advanced notice with that particular list as required in our in our policies. So that is why we won't be taking a vote today to ensure that folks who may not have gotten notice because they subscribe only to that list get a chance to testify. So we wanted to clarify that for my colleagues and for the public as to why we are going to be doing this in two parts. Just to be safe, to make sure anyone who wanted to be here has a chance to hear about it. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Okay, we have 13 speakers, and I'm going to call you up five at a time so that you come and sit in the front pews and be on deck for getting up to speed things along. Remember that if you testify this evening, you will not be able to testify at the continuation of the hearing. I'm going to call up Shannon Spurlock, Dana miller, Saffron Bennett's her. Is it special? Molly Hansen and Candice Orlando. And call up first, Shannon Spurlock.
Speaker 0: And I'll be speaking with Dana miller jointly.
Speaker 2: We don't usually do that. You get 3 minutes and she gets 3 minutes. You want to take 3 minutes together? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: Yes. Shoot. Hello, everyone. My name is Dana miller and this is Shannon Spurlock. We're the co-chairs of the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. And we're really, really glad and excited to be here. And thank you so much for the opportunity to talk about this passionate and wonderful possible change for Denver. I live at 1421, Jasmine and I live in Denver, so I would like number one for her to have all of the people in the room that are here for support to please raise your carrots. Here we go. Thank you very much. Okay. And another thing I'd like to talk a little bit about and then Shannon's going to talk about the PFC. But my vision of Denver is one that looks a little bit like this. So I don't know if you remember that Kenny B did this beautiful poster for the Denver County Fair that has Denver completely replete with with food growing everywhere all over the place. We've got food growing off of rooftops and in gardens and in school gardens and on public property. And there's food that's being grown and shared and. Eaten and sold all over the place. That is the vision that we have for Denver and as a resilient, beautiful food, a gorgeous place. So that's the big image, the big vision. And to partner with you all and making that a reality for Denver. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Minute 46.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of Council. My name is Shannon and my address is 3166 West 35th Avenue, Denver. And as co-chair of the Food Policy Council, Dana and I have been working collectively with members of council for just around two years now to identify policy priorities that were really relevant to residents of the city and county of Denver. And when that came out, was increasing food access by allowing people to grow and sell their own food. We think this can be pivotal for members for neighborhoods throughout Denver, allowing to grow their own food, meet members of their community through the sales of the food, help increase healthy food access and provide economic development community opportunity. We hope you'll support this. And if we can answer any questions, please let us know.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you very much. Well done. I'd like to call up Saffron Bennett Spurlock. Oh, good.
Speaker 4: I thank you, Madam Chair, and members of Council. My name is Saffron. I live in the Highlands neighborhood and I go to the Logan School in Denver.
Speaker 0: For a while.
Speaker 4: I have loved gardening and for a long time my family has had a garden. This year, when I heard about this new idea, I was really excited because it sounded fun and for a long time I wanted to have my own stand. I think it's a good idea because you can build a stronger community, earn money from home, and learn about gardening and business. I will be selling to friends and neighbors from Small Stand My Neighborhood. I really hope this law passes because I think it's a very good idea. Thank you.
Speaker 2: That was excellent. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Spurlock finished. Spurlock. I would like to call up now. Candidate No. Molly Hansen.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Molly Hansen, Madam Chair and members of the Council, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak again. My name is Molly Hanson. I live at 1315 Vine in Denver. I also work at Jefferson County Public Health as a health policy analyst working on healthy eating, active living strategies. So in my role both at Jefferson County Public Health and as a private citizen, I work to increase access to healthy, safe and locally grown food for all individuals and families, regardless of income, age and address. I want to thank Council for your work to increase access to healthy families, communities, environments, for example, your great work to create infrastructure to ensure families can walk and cycle to important uses like schools, parks and businesses. I urge Council to consider amending the zoning code to allow for retail of fresh.
Speaker 2: And cut produce.
Speaker 0: And cottage food produced by growers on residentially zoned properties. It seems like this is an important step with your healthy community work by allowing the sale of residentially grown produce either by growers or neighbors or at community gardens, Denver will foster access to healthy, affordable food. They'll also work to decrease hunger in low income communities where food deserts exist. In Jefferson County, two communities have enacted similar zoning codes. I had the pleasure of speaking with the city of Wheat Ridge today to ask them about their similar zoning code. UPDATE. What they said to me was there were very positive impacts in the community when they did the similar zoning code update in 2011. This zoning code update allows produce stands to sell locally grown products such as raw vegetables, fruits and herbs. The city staff said that they've had no complaints on record. It has supported the local community, it has supported connections in the community, and there has been really no negative impacts on the character of the neighborhoods. I also had the opportunity to speak to local growers in Wheat Ridge as the live well wheat rich coordinator. Consistently, I heard that this new provision has allowed market gardens and farmers markets and produce stands to connect growers to one another, to create opportunities to increase and grow local economic sectors in neighborhoods, and to really improve the overall image of Wheat Ridge as an urban or suburban environment that supports local food systems. I think as a resident, I'm passionate about bringing this additional zoning code amendment to Denver, and we thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Ms.. Hanson. Candace Orlando.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam Chair, and members of Council. My name is Candice Orlando. I live at 2921. My short place in Val Verde, near neighborhood. I am the executive director, co-founder and farmer of Permaculture Community Farms, and I'm so excited to be here today, to be a part of this beautiful community and to pass this bill that will lead the way to many, many, many places that will focus on localizing food. We are where the future here it is right now. So let's vote for goodness here. I want to talk about community as some of you guys know. We started six years.
Speaker 2: As a neighborhood, supported.
Speaker 0: Agriculture.
Speaker 2: And so people would buy shares in the beginning of the season and we would grow food.
Speaker 0: On different plots throughout Denver where people pick up their food. We have two locations, one in the Sunnyside neighborhood and one in the La alma Lincoln Park neighborhood. And the connections that are made there are amazing. People get to know each other. They come. They talk about, you know, recipes that they can make.
Speaker 2: With the food, how much kale.
Speaker 0: Can we really use? And more kale and more kale. And then they talk about how to use the kale. So community is really built in these stands and talking.
Speaker 2: About food and growing food.
Speaker 0: It really is powerful and amazing and people that wouldn't normally get to know each other, get to know each other. So I would just urge you to pass this bill. I'm really excited about it. And thank you for letting me speak.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Orlando. I'm going to call up Deborah Nealon. And as she's coming up, I'd like to ask Blake, Angelo, Maya, Bella, Celine Duran and Court and Noel, muchas say. So that matches it back up to the front pew to get ready. All right. Debra Nealon, go right ahead.
Speaker 0: Madam President, council members, my name is Debra Neeley. I live.
Speaker 2: In the Sloan's Lake neighborhood.
Speaker 0: At 26th 46 Raleigh Street. I have a double lot in the.
Speaker 2: City, 6400 square feet. I have a small bungalow house on there and the rest of it is edible landscaping.
Speaker 0: It's very tastefully done, though. It's beautiful. I have culinary herbs and medicinal herbs.
Speaker 2: And I also have a lot of vegetables.
Speaker 0: Growing everywhere and of a greenhouse chickens and bees. I think basically my passion is absolutely growing food. It's just I can't get enough of it. The other reason.
Speaker 2: I do this is to feed.
Speaker 0: My family and friends healthy, organic food. I'm very much passionate about eating well, and unfortunately it is an addiction. The only drawback.
Speaker 2: To this is.
Speaker 0: That while I'm saving money, not buying high priced.
Speaker 2: Produce at the.
Speaker 0: Grocery store, it still does cost quite a bit to do this. So I'd really like to recoup some of that money by selling produce on my property. I'm not planning on having a grocery store. I just want to let the neighbors.
Speaker 2: Know that this is what.
Speaker 0: I do and I'd like to offer.
Speaker 2: This produce to them.
Speaker 0: I'm going to rely on word of mouth, maybe use next tor.com. They're going to plan on, you know, having a big affair.
Speaker 2: You know, just come on by and get some produce.
Speaker 0: I've lived in Denver since 1977, and I'm very, very proud.
Speaker 2: Of the progress that this city has.
Speaker 0: Made in all these years, how vibrant and progressive it is.
Speaker 2: And I'd like to tip my farmer's hat off to you all for considering this.
Speaker 0: Residential bill sales ordinance and in the name of empowering our citizens to be more self-sufficient and to thrive. Thank you all for considering this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms.. Nealon. Blake Angelo.
Speaker 3: Madam Chair, members of the Council, thank you for having this public hearing today. My address is 501 South Cherry Street, number 580. Today I speak as an individual and a small business owner, but over the last four years, I've had the chance to work in part with Colorado State University and the extension service focused on urban agriculture through my combined private business and my work with CSU. I've worked with over 200 farmers and food entrepreneurs. Many of these farmers are struggling to make a living. That's not unique to farming by any means, but 40 to 50% of their costs go to labor, including a large portion of which to marketing their produce, to removing the produce from the place that it grows to sell. This is an opportunity to improve the profitability of these limited income businesses, to help support the individuals who are innovating with farms on their property. Sometimes they even are prohibited from starting farms because of the cost of marketing their produce or distributing it to people who are interested in purchasing. I've also had the experience of working with a number of cities and also the State Office of Economic Development, who see food systems as inherent community and economic development. Within food systems. We see innovation both in terms of food production, new methods under glass cultivation, tower gardens, and also manufactured food products that are stimulating a new portion of our economy, both locally and as a state we are. We also see community and economic development for historically, economically isolated, isolated or disenfranchized individuals. These have included veterans, inner city youth, people transitioning from prison, and others who have found a way to both be personally empowered and economically empowered through a livelihood in the food system . Lastly, I have recently completed my Master's in public health, and I'd like to speak a little bit to the ability of local foods to be part of the solution towards the growing obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics of our current society. While this local food bill is certainly not a comprehensive solution to those problems, it is a step in the right direction. It is an opportunity for you all and us all as a community to take forward looking steps to start to reverse the tide. Lastly, I'd like to thank the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council, of which I was an ex-officio member and of which I have watched consistently as they've engaged community and they've developed best practice research, looking both across Colorado and across the nation to put together these recommendations for you all today. I'd like to thank you for your time and support this bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Mr. Angelo. Maya.
Speaker 0: Ba ba ba ba ba ba. I might be a I'm with liberation sequence gardens. And I said on the Sustainable Food Policy Council. I actually live at 5301 West 51st Ave, and I just moved out of the Clayton neighborhood, 2500 East 33rd Avenue, where I do a lot of my work with that live well community. My partner and I have been building street sidewalk level gardens there and opening up this experiment of what it is to engage community in this really radical way. And it's been fun and it's been crazy and I am so excited that we have this opportunity to see what's possible next. And I guess there's a lot of reasons I support this zoning amendment, but the main thing is I come at it from the social capital piece of what it is to especially in communities where you have real estate is changing and you've got old timers that have been there for decades and decades and decades. And we we have a halfway house just down the street and a new Buddhist temple. And what is it? What does it look like on the street sidewalk level with those members of the community? And when we first started doing this gardening project three years ago, unless you knew each other, everybody was in their sort of bubble . And now there is a place where we can kind of come together. And food is proving to be a pretty accessible platform for folks to talk about solutions for a 21st century ready community. A real quick story. The Grow House is an organization up in Elyria, Swansea, and I've been taking an herb class with mostly Latina ladies . It's in Spanish, which is great because I don't know any Spanish and I'm learning how to speak Spanish. And we are also helping them build a garden over in the whole neighborhood. And we've been shoveling manure and woodchips and sweating and the kids came out and we have this great intergenerational build and the dialog between the women and we've had some great professional support in these gardens, but we're getting these women to learn how to grow herbs, to make tinctures, to help with asthma in their family or digestive issues. And as they're learning how to incorporate these things into their own life. Making some and sharing it with their neighbors. And honestly, 20, even 20 bucks a week extra is huge. It's huge. And and they're so motivated and they're so excited. And I feel really honored to be a part of a learning community with these women. And what's possible in the next couple of years is really, really exciting. So thank you so much for considering this amendment and see it make it stand.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms.. Celine. And please pronounce your name for me.
Speaker 0: My name is Celine Dion. Cool. I'm here. Thank you, Madam Councilwoman. I'm here with liberation sequence gardens to testify. Recently moved to the Denver area from Phenix, Arizona. And actually before that, what's more important is that I grew up, my.
Speaker 5: Father was a director of.
Speaker 0: The International Hunger Program. So growing up throughout my life, issues of hunger all over the world have always been extremely important to me. Getting to see different programs like the Heifer Project Act in different countries around the world. Just the simple act of putting a calf or a go into an impoverished community that cannot sustain itself due to lack of funds, due to lack of a million things. Water, all sorts of things has really impacted just the importance of giving people a chance to sustain themselves, to give their families a chance to feel pride in being able to provide just the simple things, even for children to be able to sell things that they produce. It's very important because it gives a sense of accountability and pride. So that's why I'm here, to help support this wonderful building, already amazing place, which is Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you very much, Noel. Is it that can as she's coming up I'd like to call Jaclyn Chaves Sundari Kraft Angelo Cantor.
Speaker 0: A tour.
Speaker 2: To the front pew thank you for your patience. Go right ahead. Mismatches avec Marquez attack melchizedek. My name is Noel Melchizedek.
Speaker 0: I live at 1627 East Asbury Avenue 80210. So I'm a Denver resident and I also work for Livewell, Colorado as the Denver Regional Coordinator and I facilitate the live of Denver Regional Collaborative. So little Colorado educating inspires adults and children to eat healthier and be more active. Because I'll call it when when people make healthier choices, that makes all of Colorado healthier in and of itself. We also have a community investment strategy. And in Denver alone, over the course of nine years, we have funded six current and previous community coalitions for a total of $6.5 million. And we've touched 18 neighborhoods in the city of Denver so far. My role is as facilitating the Denver Regional Collaborative means that not only are we supporting this ordinance and hope to see it pass, but we're really thinking about what's next. So I know concerns have arisen about safe produce handling, what classes are there available, how can residents learn that this is even possible, how to apply and how to be in compliance? And I want to let you know that in addition to the $6.5 million of what Colorado has already invested in the city and county of Denver through these community coalitions, we're absolutely on board to help support implementation activities, to coordinate classes in these neighborhoods and across the city, and to let residents know how to grow organic or however they'd like best practices. We've partnered with a Sustainable Food Policy Council, CSU extension and others to bring these resources into the neighborhoods. And we're absolutely open to more ideas of how to reach out across the city to provide these different types of classes. So the Colorado and the Denver Regional Collaborative looks forward to supporting implementation activities after this ordinance passes, and we thank you for your support.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Mr. Market. Mrdak Jaclyn Sheaves shares my name.
Speaker 0: Right. You said it right. Okay, good. Hi, everyone. My name is Jaclyn. She was the name of it 1011 Colorado Boulevard in District ten. Thank you, Madam President, and council members, for having me here today as a strong supporter of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment to allow residential sales of agricultural products in Denver. As a Denver constituent, a novice, very novice gardener, educator at the State Health Department and previous member of the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council, I value the role that locally grown healthy food plays in promoting health, fostering food security, connecting community, stimulating the economy, and protecting the environment. In 2011, my husband and I moved back to Denver from a five year stint in Atlanta. On our moving day, we met our neighbor Harvey, a gentleman in his sixties who had been here for 50 years with his wife Lila, in the Berkeley neighborhood. He greeted us with much. Both from his own garden and started a friendship where we looked out for each other, not only exchanging produce, but talking about each other's day from our front porches, something I had never done with a neighbor before. When our dog ran away, Harry returned him to us. And when the weather got cold, we brought them soup. It all started with a vegetable exchange. Recent data shows fruit and vegetable consumption has declined significantly over the last three decades. Fewer than half Americans report eating five or more servings of fruits or vegetables and five or more days per week. Yet increased fruit and vegetable consumption has been shown to decrease the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke. So more needs to be done to accomplish to improve the food environment, such as access, availability and affordability of fruits and vegetables. I was shocked at how much my husband and I saved every month and our grocery budget from going to King Soopers to buy produce to growing it ourselves. I ended up with way more tomatoes and squash than I ever wanted and needed something to do with it. But I knew with the zoning code I had nothing to do. Selling it to someone was not something I could do at the time. I recently learned from my friend in Atlanta the landscape of a home on a quarter to a half acre lot receiving full sunlight can grow enough vegetables and fruit to provide for family members with 5x14 servings a day for an entire year. Underserved neighborhoods like Westwood are taking advantage of this. These benefits with organizations like Rear Vision International helping residents grow their own backyard gardens to feed their families healthy food and expand the local food system. By allowing for the sale of agricultural products from residential sites, people in every low income community can be encouraged to plant their own backyard gardens, not only for their personal consumption, but to generate supplemental income so they don't have to rely on the dollar menu at McDonald's to feed their families. This has been one of the biggest complaints I have gotten as health educator in obesity prevention. I cannot afford fruits and vegetables. It's too expensive. According to National Gardening Association estimates, a well-maintained food garden can yield an estimated half pound of fresh produce per square foot, yielding a $500 return on average when considering a typical gardener's investment and the market price of produce. In this economy, any chance for families to make a little extra income is a good thing. And with the security measures that we added, buyers will be protected as only whole uncut produce. Produce will be allowed to be sold. Presidents of the zoning code has accused Ms..
Speaker 2: Chiefs, your time is up.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Sundari Craft. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: And members for you and members of council. My name is Sandra Elizabeth Kraft. I own property at 4461 on a court in the Berkeley neighborhood, although my family has recently moved half a mile west into Wheat Ridge. I am the founding co-chair of the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council, as well as the owner of Heirloom Gardens and the founder of the of Sustainable Food, Denver.
Speaker 2: You've heard other people tonight.
Speaker 0: Talk to you about other cities that have successfully implemented similar ordinances. They've talked to you about the economic impact for families of an ordinance like this. And they've talked to you about the impact on food access and food justice. And so I don't want to duplicate their efforts. Instead, what I'd like to talk to you about is a broader picture of what an ordinance like this would mean for the overall culture of Denver, both for people who are living within Denver.
Speaker 2: And for the way that.
Speaker 0: Denver is perceived by those who live outside of our city. In the past several years, Denver has taken a number of very impressive steps in the areas of sustainability and specifically in sustainable food policy. In 2010, you passed a new zoning code that had a number of important and very helpful urban agricultural.
Speaker 2: Provisions.
Speaker 0: In it. In 2011.
Speaker 2: You passed the WHO.
Speaker 0: Producing Animals ordinance. Thank you very much, which was a huge victory for sustainable food in Denver. The city has adopted some great policies and that's due in large part to great work by city staff and great work by city council. And these policies have been implemented very sensibly. But what these policies really are addressing is the production of food. They don't talk about what happens to the food after it is produced. And so this element of residential sales is really an important part of completing this whole picture of sustainable food in Denver. And as someone who has been active.
Speaker 2: In sustainable.
Speaker 0: Food policy issues in Denver over the past several years.
Speaker 2: I can tell you that to me.
Speaker 0: This ordinance what this ordinance does is the the big thing that was missing for me. This we have great policies in so many different areas. This is what I wanted this last piece. And I can't promise that I will never bother you again for anything. But I can tell you that really and truly what this ordinance does really goes a long way towards completing the picture for sustainable food in Denver. It is very important and I'm very proud of the work that has been done and very excited to see this pass in Denver. So please vote yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Miss Craft, Jill Lowcountry or local tour. Hello.
Speaker 0: My name is Jill Logan. Tori and I'm a resident of the City Park West neighborhood. I live at 2145 East 16th Avenue, and I'm here to testify in favor of the proposed amendment. You heard earlier during the staff.
Speaker 2: Report that the amendment is consistent.
Speaker 0: With Denver's comprehensive plan and with the mayor's sustainability plan. It also directly supports your own community health improvement plan, which focuses on healthy eating and active active living as a priority area and set specific objectives for increasing access to healthy food in underserved areas, and also for increasing the number of areas that support active physical activity. Currently, the USDA estimates that at least one sixth of Denver's population lives in a food desert. This lack of access to neighborhood grocery stores is especially burdensome to people who can't drive, either because of income or age or disability. And so.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 0: Beauty of this proposed amendment is that it would allow people to access healthy, fresh food simply by walking around their own neighborhoods. Research has shown that people who are able to incorporate walking into their daily activities, such as shopping for food, are more likely to achieve their recommended 30, 30 minutes of daily physical activity. And so the great thing is you can encourage both healthy eating and active living with this one change to the zoning code. Finally, I wanted to say that I agree with the Denver Post editorial that questioned why residential food sales were ever outlawed in the first place. I personally don't have a lot of time to grow my own vegetables, but I love the idea of being able to pay my neighbor and share in the produce that they grow. And frankly, it seems a little silly that it's illegal to do that right now. So I encourage you to pass the proposed amendment and thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Miss Logan. Tori, Council Councilmember. Note to members you can ask questions now of the speakers if you like, but please hold your comments until they we close the public hearing at the next June 4th, July 14th meeting. Are there questions for council Councilwoman?
Speaker 0: CORNISH Thank you, Madam President. One question we did not have here today, but was in the packets that folks received from our constituents, was just a little bit about the safety of food in terms of the kinds of food on the list. So I was wondering if environmental health could take just a moment to speak to the foods that are allowed and why they're allowed and why we feel confident as a city in terms of public health.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Chair, members of City Council. My name is Bob McDonald. I'm the director of Public Health Inspections and Environmental Health. I'm sorry you don't have a carrot with me this afternoon. Yeah, that's tomato in my briefcase, but it was smashed, so I'm afraid that leaves me empty handed. But I can certainly address any food safety concerns you might have. I guess I'll start out by saying that my counterparts and our counterparts at the State Health Department did their work here. These are truly low risk foods, foods that that really, quite honestly, isn't anything taking place here other than the sales transaction that doesn't already take place. You know, these are low risk foods that that neighbor share that coworkers bring into the office that people can already share. Denver citizens can bring these foods to farmers markets and sell it. And if they sell it uncut, it's not even regulated. Now, sometimes they asked with this type of bill being that it's exempt because it's low risk foods, it's exempt from Denver's food safety laws sometimes ask, would we be able to respond to a concern if there was one? We certainly can not under chapter 23 Denver's Food Safety Regulations, but under Chapter 24, which is titled the General Health and Sanitation Laws for the City of Denver, which would allow the Department of Environmental Health to address any health concern on public or private land of any type. Now, having said that, I don't anticipate any. I've been in contact with my counterpart, the director of the State Consumer Protection Division, and I've spoken with his members and my counterparts up in the Larimer County and Boulder County, Jefferson County. And I believe, as previous speaker mentioned, that they haven't had any concerns and I haven't heard of any concerns either. So with that said, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: That's all. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Watson. I have a couple questions for you. There's another group of folks I mean, this managing health risks, you know, the safety. I think Bob is kind of addressed. But there's another concern of, you know, furniture and and things kind of crowding people's space. And, you know, my my neighbor has this couch out there. He's selling. He's got his table. What kind of how was this bill put together in kind of mitigating some of those issues?
Speaker 0: Sure.
Speaker 5: So we actually because we knew that would be a concern. And it's so important to keep the visible impact of a home occupation like this to a minimum. Worked with our neighborhood inspection services. That would be the folks actually out in the field inspecting and making sure there's compliance with the regulations, help craft the right language so that they feel like they have what they need. And so what that includes is very specific language that first of all, you can only have temporary movable furniture. So as soon as you have something that you've actually mounted to the ground and has to kind of stay in place, you're violating the code. There's also a requirement that you have to bring whatever physical evidence you have inside whenever you're not in permitted operating hours. So what's on the floor tonight would be eight a am to dusk. So any time beyond those hours you would not be able to leave anything out in your yard. We've also crafted the language to talk about temporary outdoor furniture. So something they felt pretty comfortable that something they they already deal with when people are trying to kind of store indoor furniture outside or on a porch. It's a similar type of issue where things like a couch, for example, wouldn't be allowed.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Tell me about signage. Sure. How is that limited?
Speaker 5: So signage for all home occupations, including this proposed one tonight, is limited to for most properties, it'd be one signs, basically one per street frontage. So we had a corner lot with two street frontage, you potentially up to four. Most would be one sign. It can be no greater than 100 square inches. So very small. It has to be flat non-illuminated a non animated and it has to be affixed to the house so it can be like on the wall or window so you can't have a sign out towards the street or, you know, on a tree in your front yard or anything like that.
Speaker 3: Okay. And this is a 100 square inches. How big is that?
Speaker 5: Ten by ten by ten inches or in the spot? Even a foot by foot. So. Okay.
Speaker 3: Right. Okay. In my last question, and this is a little bit bigger, maybe you can help out with some technical aspects of this. How pervasive is this around the United States? How many municipalities have actually put this ordinance in place? You know, you may not know the actual number, but just I think it's good for the public to know that they never. Not the first. Sure. And also, you know, a little bit of how some best practices that you've seen in your studies. Have we kind of crafted our language here? Sure.
Speaker 5: Yeah. You are correct that I cannot tell you the exact number of communities that have this kind of law on the books. But we looked at about ten in total, and that included pretty large cities, some medium sized. So just to give you an example of kind of the range, we're looking at cities like Cleveland and Kansas City, Portland and Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia. So quite a range to choose from, which is great because as you noted, we're able to then look at their ordinances and best practices to help shape ours. So some of the things that you see in our bill, including, for example, limitations on the hours of operation. We saw that and a lot of other bills. Most of them actually. I think it's interesting. We're starting very early, like six or 7 a.m. for those who did limit it. And another thing that I would note is we were able to actually contact one of those cities. They're planning staff. It was in Portland and they have had there I'm not going to remember the exact number of years, but it's been significant, I think maybe 2 to 3 years that they've had this law on the books. And they said not only have they had a fair number of people actually doing residential sales of produce for them, it's specifically produced, but they've had a lot of people participating and so far, no complaints at all.
Speaker 3: Hmm. Thank you for the questions.
Speaker 2: Okay, Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Chair. So I know that there's there's been great testimony tonight, but there's actually not been anybody speaking against. But I'm sure there may be people in the television audience that are really concerned with one big question, and that is the fact that we have legalized the sale of recreational marijuana and maybe worried that brownies or something like that might be sold, you know, by people who are attempting to be innocuous. Tell us how that is going to be handled.
Speaker 5: Sure. Yeah, it's a it's an important issue. I just want to be clear that selling marijuana from your home would be a criminal offense. And so I think the there's several areas in the city that you can be investigated against. So the first would be the Denver police would be involved because it is a criminal law that you'd be breaking. The second would be not being in compliance with our excise and license requirements. So anybody who's selling recreational marijuana has to have a very specific license to do that. If you are selling without one, whether it's from your home or on the street or in a makeshift commercial stand that you made yourself, whatever it is you are not licensed, you are in violation and can also be found and be fined and have other issues for that violation. And then a third category of our regulations that you would be found to have noncompliance with is the zoning code itself. Again, the zoning code makes it very clear that you wouldn't be able to sell marijuana of any type, including infused into products like brownies as part of this. And I would also like to note that the Denver Police Department and my department that does neighborhood inspections and ensures the zoning code is being met as well as exercise and license, are already well coordinated on how to enforce marijuana issues. We already have people violating our recreational marijuana laws and folks that deal with compliance. And all of those departments with the Denver police being heavily involved have worked out the protocol that they use when these issues come up. So we have that infrastructure in place.
Speaker 0: But just clarify for me, if a neighbor thinks that another neighbor is selling something that might have marijuana in it.
Speaker 2: You have to speak into your.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. So if a neighbor thinks another neighbor is selling marijuana illegally, what do they do? Just make it clear.
Speaker 5: Sure. Call 311 right away. And there will be a basically Denver police reports to any investigation that involves marijuana. And then they can also bring in neighborhood inspections and excise and license as needed.
Speaker 0: But they can call the police as well.
Speaker 5: They could. Yes, you could also call the police.
Speaker 0: In particular of children.
Speaker 5: Yes. And yeah, especially if you are concerned, you know, the children are that somebody is actually has a product that's not safe. You know, definitely call the police.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam President. If you could stay there for a moment, Sarah. Sure. Can you address whether or not people are able to grow any of this produce in the public? Right of way?
Speaker 5: Yeah. That's governed by public works, which is not my department. So I don't know all the details about. I do know they have regulations about how tall any type of plant can be, whether it's food producing or not. But in general, yes, you can have food producing food in the right of way.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I have one question for one of our speakers, and this is for Saffron Spurlock. Saffron. I didn't mean to scare you, but would you.
Speaker 2: Come up so I can ask you a question? Oh, it's the lady over there. So if.
Speaker 0: You can go back to the.
Speaker 2: Microphone there. She was looking around for who was asking the question.
Speaker 3: Stand on the bench, you.
Speaker 0: Know? You know, so. So my first question for you, Saffron, is there, how would you encourage other young people to participate in gardening with their family members, with their neighbors?
Speaker 4: All right. Tell some of my friends about it and let them know that it's a good idea. I mean.
Speaker 0: Great. Yeah. So what can you tell us? What it is that you're growing or you plan to grow in your garden?
Speaker 4: Well, I have onions, I have some radishes, I have lettuce, and I have carrots and.
Speaker 3: Beans.
Speaker 4: And then some other things and tomatoes.
Speaker 0: All right. I might have to come over and buy some for me once they're all grown. All right. Thank you for coming and testifying. Hopefully, this is encouraging more young people to participate as well.
Speaker 4: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Councilman Brown.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President, is molly is still in the room, mali.
Speaker 5: I think it sounds like she had to step out. She's not.
Speaker 0: Here anymore.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, maybe one of you can answer the question because she said that she wanted to allow the sale of uncut produce. I'm not familiar with that term.
Speaker 5: I can clarify that. It's a good question. It's a term that's used a lot to describe. What we're basically talking about is you can cut fruit from or vegetables from the vine, but then you need to sell them whole. So our zoning language uses the same word, meaning that if you want to sell your tomatoes, you can't have actually taken a knife and cut them into pieces. So you're selling and in this case, you have to be selling, whether it's fruit or vegetables whole. And that's because of food safety issues. So an example is a lot is the listeria outbreak with the cantaloupe that happened a couple of years ago. A lot of it was spreading. That is that it was on the skin of the cantaloupes. If you haven't properly washed it and then you cut it with a knife, that actually brings the contamination into the fruit. So by not cutting the produce before it's sold, that helps to ensure that it becomes the buyer's responsibility to wash the produce appropriately before it's cut.
Speaker 3: Right. That's interesting. I did not know that. Thank you. And Madam President, if I may, because I know we cannot take positions tonight because this is a zoning matter. But I would like to thank everyone for coming down. It's rare that we get 13 speakers that are so positive. I just. You have no idea. And Blake, thank you. The only male to speak tonight. And finally, I hope you don't mind if we call you the Carrot Caucus.
Speaker 2: Is that.
Speaker 3: All right? Great. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Very good. Thank you, Councilman Brown. I have just one one question. I don't think anybody addressed this. I understand the sign. You currently have that 1000 inches. Is there any other kinds of limitations on the advertising you can do, such as next door or local newspapers or any or any kind of other? Is there any kind of limitation on their advertising?
Speaker 5: There's not. The limitations are meant to address the visible impacts on the neighborhood. So it just addresses the visible signage, but it does not address social media or Internet or other ways of advertising.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I see no other questions. Councilmembers. We're not going to vote on the proposed amendment to change the time at which sales could begin from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.. And I was wondering if there would be comments by members of Council on that amendment. It is on the floor and seconded. And I see, Councilwoman Sheppard, you would like to make a comment on the amendment?
Speaker 0: Well, I just wanted to make a general comment, because I'm not going to be here on final.
Speaker 2: We can't. We can't. I had another question by another council person. It's you can't comment because it's an open. And hearing it's a zoning question.
Speaker 1: People know, why am I going?
Speaker 2: Well, you can let people know why you're not going to be here. So you can't comment on that.
Speaker 0: Well, I just wanted to thank everyone for their testimony today. And it was really good and thoughtful and moving. And I just want to let the public know that I am very happy to co-sponsor this bill. But unfortunately, because of the mix up with the dates, I'm not going to be here on July 14th for a final reading. And I just want to make sure that you guys know that. But I'm very disappointed that I'm going to miss it.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. All right. So do we have comments on the proposed amendment? Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I have you saw in the presentation that we did outreach to more than 23 RINO's directly, and that included two trips to the inner neighborhood cooperation, which is our citywide registered neighborhood organization. And we really did sincerely ask for their feedback and their input on this, as well as answering questions. I've said before from this dais that it's never my approach to governing, that you count to seven and then stop discussing something. And so even though we had support from more registered neighborhood organizations than we had opposition, even though we had many members of council in support, because as a text amendment, we are allowed to take a position on this. You know, beforehand, unlike a map amendment, I still wanted to take that input very seriously. And so one of the things that we heard was from the inner neighborhood cooperation, which is our city wide, our No. Seven felt a little early, and we went ahead and discussed that along with the folks who do this, some folks who grow food and some folks who want to. And we asked, is there some space for compromise here to help folks know that they were heard? And I was very pleased that folks said, you know, it's important for us to be able to harvest in the morning and get food, you know, may be sold before you go to work or before you go to soccer practice on a Saturday because, you know, things will turn the summer. Tomatoes get skunky if they get in the sun after they're ripe. So 10:00 was a little too late. But there was this willingness to move to say, you know what, if this will help folks and communities and neighborhoods feel better about this, we're willing to to move just a little bit. And so so that was the origin of this amendment was an attempt to say, that's good feedback that you've given us, folks who do this and believe that it's important, not that everyone on every block will be doing this, it'll probably be a very small number. But for that small number, it's important. So our co-sponsors today, we discussed this and felt that it was a really good compromise. There was no particular timing for the neighborhood organizations who share this concern to go back and vote on it formally. So I'm not here with their endorsement that yes, eight is right. But we did informally share the information with folks and folks were appreciative of our willingness to hear their feedback. So so that's the origin of this amendment. I would encourage my council members to support it in the in the spirit of working with our neighborhoods and in the spirit of keeping the business opportunity working for those who are interested, i think it's a good balance to move it to. 8 a.m. So that's the amendment before you and I would ask my colleagues to support it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. And I see no other comments. So, Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?
Speaker 0: Can each layman Hi. LOPEZ All right. Montero.
Speaker 1: Nevitt Hi.
Speaker 0: Ortega I rob. Shepherd I. Crooks I. Brown I. Fox I. Lopez Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the.
Speaker 0: Results.
Speaker 2: Always 12 eyes. The amendment to the ordinance is a text amendment. The amendment to the amendment is passed. I think is what we're saying. Councilwoman, please. We need a motion to continue the public hearing and to postpone final consideration to Monday, July 14th.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I move that the public hearing on Council Bill 398 as amended, be continued and final consideration postponed to Monday, July 14th, 2014.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 2: It's been moved and seconded. Are there any comments and seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Can each high layman Lopez Monteiro Nevitt?
Speaker 3: Never know.
Speaker 0: What.
Speaker 2: They're voting on. The polls, the public hearings.
Speaker 3: I'll take a guess, I guess.
Speaker 0: Hi, Rob. Hi, Chip. I Brooks.
Speaker 3: Brown.
Speaker 0: I fight. I got a president. I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. The public hearing is postponed until July 14th, and I have no announcements to make. So see no other business for this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Denver 87. Your city, your source.
Speaker 1: Denver eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community. Your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to allow fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE ) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow fresh produce and cottage food sales as a home occupation. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06022014_14-0449
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Secretary. And now let's move to proclamations. We have two proclamations this evening, and I have the honor of reading the first one Proclamation 449 Honoring Philip s miller, M.D. f ACP fh ed on the occasion of his retirement, whereas Dr. Philip s Maler began his career 27 years ago with Denver General. We all remember it as Denver General, during which time he has served in many assignments, including staff attending physician Glassman, Professor of Medicine and Endowed Chair Denver Health and Department of Medicine. University of Colorado School of Medicine. Associate Dean. University of Colorado School of Medicine. Professor of Infectious Disease and Medical Director and Chief Clinical Officer. And. Whereas, Dr. Miller is nationally renowned as the expert in eating disorders and has saved many lives of people who have suffered from this disease. And. Whereas, Dr. Miller is a prolific academician, having published over 350 articles in peer reviewed journal journals and also is an accomplished professor of medicine with an international reputation for excellence in research, education and clinical care. And. Whereas, Dr. Miller has trained hundreds of interns, residents and fellows to be physicians of medicine. And. WHEREAS, Dr. Mailer's leadership abilities have led to the creation of a world class facility supported by world class physicians and staff, many of whom have devoted their entire careers to Denver Health and its patients, providing compassionate state of the art and equitable medical care to thousands of patients, including the current mayor, Michael B, Hancock governors and city council members. And. Whereas, as a result of Dr. Mailer's work, Denver Health became a truly integrated health care system, which resulted in it becoming a model health care organization for the nation. And. Whereas, Dr. Mailer has received many awards and commendations, including being on the list of Denver's top doctors of internal medicine in our 50 to 80 magazine, who's who among executives and professionals, the best doctors in America and internal medicine, just to name a few. And. Whereas, this city will miss his leadership, his ability to create the future of health care, and importantly, his constant dedication to our patients and the true mission of Denver health. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, the Denver City Council hereby recognizes Dr. Mailer for his contributions. To Denver's communities in countless ways, personally and professionally, to keep Denver's residents healthy. And for his professional and personal dedication to the city and county of Denver, the state of Colorado and the nation. His retirement scheduled for June 2nd, 2014. He will make us have a void that will be challenging to fill. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Dr. Philip s mailer, M.D. Frcp an faa e d and having read the proclamation, I move the proclamation 449 be adopted. Second, it has been moved and seconded. We now have comments from the council members and I will go first. I am very, very happy to be able to do this for Dr. Mailer. He is my constituent, so that makes him even more special. But your history and your career are amazing. Outstanding, excellent. That service that you give in our city is above and beyond. And we can't thank you enough. We will miss you greatly. And I'm so glad to be able to do this proclamation this evening. And I see no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Oh, no, I do see a comment a little bit coming in late. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Sorry, I was trying to switch from one screen to the other. First of all, I want to ask that my name be added to the proclamation. Certainly. I just want to express my gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Taylor for his 27 years of service to the city of Denver. It takes very special people who want to do this work and commit their profession and their lifetime history to working with the population at Denver Health Serves. And I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to you. So thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Madam President, high growth round, high fat. I can eat lemon Lopez. Hi, Montero. Hi. Nevitt Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. The proclamation is adopted, and I would like to call on Dr. Gonzalez, I believe, to the podium. I think you have a few words to say about Dr. Mailer.
Speaker 3: Madam President, members of council, it's a delight for me to be here and join you in this proclamation. We've had several ceremonies and events for Dr. Mahler honoring him, and it was a real pleasure to see all of his colleagues, his former students, all of the employees come and visit and wish him well wishes. I think the proclamation speaks for itself in terms of all of his accomplishments as a researcher, as an educator, and also, first and foremost, his love of taking care of patients. But the one thing I'd like to add is I've gotten to know him over the last 18 months, and he's a person of very high integrity and character, caring deeply about the work that he does and about the patients that he takes care of. And as someone mentioned earlier, that it's a special calling for someone to do that and do that so well for so very long. Finally, it's my pleasure to announce to you that after a lot of conversations with Dr. Miller that he will be staying on at Denver Health in a part time basis, post-retirement, after he enjoys a little time off with his family. And he'll be still the director of the Acute Eating Disorders Center. And it's a pleasure to be able to retain him for the benefit of all in Denver, who needs his service and those from around the country who come as well. So we certainly wish him our very best and it's a pleasure to be able to be here and celebrate this with him tonight. And some of his family members are here, too.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Dr. Gonzales, sounds like we don't have to go cold turkey and without his services. Dr. Miller, would you like to come up to the podium?
Speaker 3: Good afternoon or good evening, I guess. Thank you for this honor. I'm a native Denver. I was born in St Anthony's and grew up in the west side of Denver. Went to see you night school. I worked as a butcher up in 50th in Washington for five years when I was going through night school. And then I went to see U. Medical School when I was a resident and then joined Denver General at the time. I walked into Denver General for the first time when I was a third year medical student in 1982, my pediatric rotation and fell in love with the place and never left. So it's been a 34 year marriage for me, including residency and student time. And it's truly been a an honor and a privilege for me to serve the institution, to serve its patients, to serve its medical staff and all the other staff. 5500 people that work at Denver Health. Denver Health is a jewel locally. It's well acclaimed nationally and deservedly so. We practice terrific medicine there. We have a wonderful nursing staff. We have a wonderful administrative staff and medical staff there. And Denver really can be very proud of Denver Health that although we've taken care of the DISENFRANCHIZED for many years, we've never lost sight of the fact that our sacred pact in life is to heal and to heal everybody, regardless of their ability to pay. And that's been my calling in life, and I'm very privileged that I've been able to spend my entire career there. And with the exaltation of Dr. Gonzales and his staff, I'm going to be staying on on a part time basis, continuing to take care of the folks that I've worked with for about 30 years, those with severe anorexia nervosa and bulimia. And we have a center at Denver Health Medical Center that has no replica in the United States. It's the only medical stabilization program like itself in the United States where we take critically ill patients and restore them to life. About 30% of our patients come by air ambulance from other cities and states in the United States. And it truly speaks volumes about the quality of care of Denver health. So thank you for this honor. I'm eternally grateful for Your Honor, and I'm eternally grateful for the opportunity that's been given to me to work at Denver Health for all these years. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Madam President. Yes? We will get a chance to meet.
Speaker 2: Whose family didn't get a chance to meet his family. Would you like to hear what? The family with the family members of Dr. Miller, please stand.
Speaker 7: One family member is. Very, very. Thank you very much. Thank you as well.
Speaker 2: Okay. We have a second proclamation number for 77 and I'll call on Councilman Brown.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. This is a proclamation recognizing the 80th anniversary of Southeast Denver's Bonnie Breed Tavern, where as local diners have always played a vital role in the economic and social life of a neighborhood. And. Whereas, for 80 years, a little diner in southeast Denver called the Bonnie Brae Tavern has served four generations of neighbors.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Philip S. Mehler, MD, FACP, FAED on the occasion of his retirement. A proclamation honoring Philip S. Mehler, MD, FACP, FAED on the occasion of his retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06022014_14-0266
|
Speaker 5: And this map shows the specifically affected properties. It is Welton Street between 28th and the intersection with Downing. Affecting all of the 2800 block and then just the western half of the 20 903,000 blocks. I also want to point out that the 30th and Downing Light Rail Station is not included within this area. The reason for that is because of the specific plan guidance that we have that showed five storeys as being an appropriate height on the property facing Downing and Welton, but recommended three stories facing California, and that is the zoning that the property currently has so to avoid. Split zoning the station itself into two different districts. We left it out of this map amendment. This map here shows the subject area in detail. There are 38 properties in total within the subject area, about seven acres in size, all of it zoned Cemex three. And the proposal is to rezone to Cemex five. Cemex five stands for Urban Center. Mixed use five storeys maximum. Adjacent properties. Many of these are already zoned CMCs five. You can see here along Welton Street, a couple of blocks of properties that already have the Cemex five zoning directly across the street from this area as well as to the southwest. Further down the corridor also has Cemex five so rezoning the affected properties here to see them x five will result in a consistent treatment of the properties along Walton Street. They'll all have the same zoned district beyond that to the west. In the Curtis Park neighborhood, you see u RH 2.5 zoning. And along this edge there's some GM x three mapped here at the Denver Health Clinic. In terms of historic districts, there are a couple in the vicinity. The affected area is partially located within the Walnut Street Commercial Cultural District. All of the properties except those here on the northernmost reach are located within that historic cultural district. Additionally, the Curtis Park Historic District is shown mapped in green. So there's location within a historic district as well as adjacency to historic district and current uses within this area, primarily a mix of commercial, retail and office as well as residential uses. Adjacent uses include the light rail station to the northeast, to the southeast and Southwest uses consistent with what's found along Walton Street, commercial residential mix into the northwest in the Curtis Park neighborhood, residential uses. And here are some photos of properties within the affected area. All of these are within the subject area, except for this one here in the lower right corner. These properties are already zoned CMC's five. In terms of our process. This was recommended by Planning Board for approval at their March 19th meeting, and we have followed the city's standard process for zone map amendments, with one exception, which was at the outset of the process before any notification had gone out to other organizations. CPD worked with Council District eight and the Five Points Business District to mail notification letters to all of the property owners within the affected area. So they were first notified of the intention to legislatively rezone the area before anyone else was notified. And then we continued from that point forward with our normal rezoning notification process. We did receive one official letter of support for this rezoning that coming from Curtis Park neighbors, and we have not received any letters of opposition. The Curtis Parks letter is included as an attachment to the staff report. In terms of review criteria, there are normally five, but for a legislative rezoning there are only three. And we'll go through each of those criteria now. The first is consistency with adopted plans. There are four that apply in this area, the first being comp plan 2000 and CPD has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with several comp plan 2000 recommendations related to environmental sustainability, mobility, land use and legacies, and specifically increasing the mix of uses and identifying areas where additional building higher density can be accommodated and is desirable. Blueprint Denver identifies This is an area of change and the concept land use is a mix of pedestrian shopping corridor and transit oriented development, both of which are types of mixed use. The street classification for Welton is Main Street Collector. So for Blueprint Denver, we also find consistency with the proposal. The Welton Downing Triangle Plan is one of our older active plans adopted in 1986 and re adopted in 2000 with Comp Plan 2000. And this plan identifies the subject properties as being located in the Upper Walton sub area. And the guidance from that plan is to allow additional commercial. If that commercial is found to be compatible with adjacent residential. And we do believe that our new zoned districts adopted in 2010, which provide for building sculpting at the rear of properties where there's an abutment with a protected residential district, which is the situation that we have here, does provide for that level of compatibility between commercial and residential uses. Finally, the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan adopted in 2011 has recommendations that are specific to Main Street corridors, and it identifies Walton as one of those corridors and states that a moderate mix scale of general shopfront, apartment and row house building forms is desired in this area. It recommends that those buildings be sited in a context sensitive manner with emphasis. Orienting to the street in parking, access off the rear or to the alley promotes the use of design elements that link the building directly to the street environment and allows for a mix of uses within both the area and within buildings themselves and the CSX five. Zoning does accomplish these objectives. The plan also provides specific guidance in terms of land use and building height. It recommends transit oriented development within the subject area and a maximum height of five storeys. So there also we find consistency. So in terms of all three applicable criteria here, we find that there is consistency with all of the adopted plans within the area. The second criteria, which is uniformity of district regulations, we find that rezoning the CMC's three properties to CMC's five will encourage the uniform application of the new Denver zoning code within this area, and furthermore that the Public Health, Safety and welfare will be advanced primarily through the implementation of the city's adopted land use plans. So after considering all this, the official recommendation from CPD is approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. It looks like we have seven people signed up to speak and I'm going to ask the first four to come on up in the front pews so we can have you on deck. And they are. Tracy Winchester, Jill Dancy Williams, Michael Markel, Aubrey Atherton. Come on up and we'll start with Tracy Winchester.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. My name is Traci Winchester. I'm the executive director of the Five Points Business District. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm here in support of the Community Planning Development's recommendations that we rezone from Cemex three to SIMEX five, the 2800 to 3000 blocks of Welton Street, as you all heard from Cortland. It was very important to us that we notified our property owners and we went over and above the normal procedures for notification. We sent out letters to everyone prior to the planning board and prior to the City Council meeting and the subcommittee for Land Use. We also sent out another letter prior to this hearing on June 2nd to make sure that their voices would be heard in opposition or in support of this. In the last couple of weeks, or rather last couple of months, this office has received no opposition at all. In fact, we received phone calls saying this was a great idea. We're glad we're moving forward with this. And people that we thought might potentially oppose this said no, they were in favor of it. And these were property owners. We were hoping that they would be here today, but they're not. We have other property owners who will be speaking in support of this rezoning effort. So to keep this short, I'll let the other people speak. The property owners here speak in our behalf. And we thank you again for taking this under consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Winchester. Jill. Dorothy Williams.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Jill Dancy Williams. I'm the owner of 3025 Welton Street. I'm a practicing attorney. I've been a residential property owner and business owner in this area since 2000. My children also attend Gilpin Montessori Elementary School, which is right around the corner from this proposed rezoning area we zoned area. I'm asking I'm here today in support of this rezoning proposal of the 28th to 30th block of Welton Street from Cemex, 3 to 5. I follow the changes that have been going on in this area and believe that this is one of the most important acts that the Council can undertake to ensure that the end of the Welton Street corridor continues to be used for both residential as well as commercial purposes. There were several policies that speak to the importance of rezoning the end of the corridor and encouraging more residential density and strengthening existing businesses. First, I believe that it will create a more compatible and consistent development, enhance the community's character, increase affordable housing, spur economic development, while improving the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. The goal here is to enable people to live near where they work, shop, play, educate their children and receive a variety of services. This measure will also help to increase the value of all of the properties in this area and make the properties on the northern blocks of the corridor more attractive to developers because of its proximity to downtown and to the RTD. We can capitalize on opportunities to develop housing along the transit line and help reduce vehicle traffic, travel and pollution. This will benefit not only the residents but the schools and the small business owners in the area. Allowing for smart growth and design will also encourage more modern style residential development, attracting a more professional, younger demographic and encouraging uniformity in line with the downtown market and the Lower Welton Street Line and Walton Street Trends. This will allow for more flexibility consistent with the vision of the entire neighborhood. You have already furthered the goals of many of the property owners by making tax increment financing available, supporting the vitalization of this district. I am fortunate to own in this corridor and I ask that you consider the positive economic efforts and effects on businesses and the economic benefit to the community in making this decision. This rezoning change will be a welcome addition to this beautiful neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Ansley Williams, Michael Markel.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is Michael Markel and I resided 5723 Arapahoe Avenue in Boulder and I'm here I'm a hard act to follow on that last was very eloquently spoken. I just I'll try to be brief. I'm a property owner on Welton Street and we owned five properties to 28, 31, 28, 43 and we would be here in support of the rezoning effort from the Cemex three to see in next five and just my first project in. Boulder. Absolutely. First project in Denver, and I'm a Boulder County developer, but I'm excited, you know, to be in Denver and I'm excited to be on Welton Street and also in five points. And I would ask, you know, your support for this rezoning and we do have been doing some concept plans. And with your approval on the rezoning, we would be very excited to talk, you know, to all the neighborhood groups, you know, get involved and start the process and demonstrate, you know, to the neighbors, you know, that we would be very compatible with some of the uses that are within the neighborhood. And we would also be compatible with the city of Denver's.
Speaker 5: You know, goals.
Speaker 3: That have been outlined, you know, by the planner that spoke previously. So if you had any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. If not, I would like your support. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Merkle. I'll call Aubrey at a time. But while he's coming up, I'd like to ask Joel Noble, Sekou and King Harris to come to the front pews to be on deck. And thank you for your patience, Mr. Arrington.
Speaker 3: Hello, council members. My name is.
Speaker 5: Aubrey Addison, and I live at 2036.
Speaker 3: Glenwood Glencoe Street here in Denver. Just wanted to say that as I've had a chance to work with some of the owners, Mr. Markel's particular on the area and interact with the community. I've had nothing but positive feedback from the people we've dealt down there and in our professional experience and business acumen, it seems that this change of the zoning from the CRM x three to CRM x five will really help rehabilitate some of that area and I think we'll get things going. So I hope you support it. And I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Addison. Joel Noble.
Speaker 5: Good evening, council members. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street and I'm here representing Curtis Park Neighbors, the neighborhood organization that I serve as president of. Curtis Park Neighbors took a position on March 17th in favor of this rezoning. We voted with a vote of nine in favor, zero opposed, and with two new board members abstaining throughout the second half of 2010, Curtis Park neighbors and the whole neighborhood spent a lot of time working on the new area plan, which was an update from our 1987 Curtis Park Neighborhood Plan. And in addition to the wonderful sessions the community planning and development always holds, we had ten specific Curtis Park study sessions in the evening that Cortland Heiser took his evenings to join us with. And one of those sessions was What about our edges? What do we want to see? What's our vision for Welton Street, for Downing Street, for Park Avenue? And the result of that is in the Northeast, Downtown Neighborhoods plan the vision for five stories that steps down at the alley with a protected district gate guidance that is now in the zoning code. So when it came time to adopt that plan, Curtis Park neighbors was unanimously in support. We'd like to express our gratitude to Councilman Brooks, who's bringing this forward legislatively. You know, why is it being brought forth legislatively as Jill Durante Williams was talking about? There's a serious commitment on behalf of the city to revitalize this corridor. Bringing this forward legislatively reduces the burden on the property owners from having to rezone one at a time piecemeal, which is an expensive and lengthy and sometimes contentious process. If I may, I think there's some lessons here for how well this has worked that that I think we can learn from. One is the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan spent the time with the community to get the vision specific what's called for in the area plan is five stories and a particular set of uses. It's not a range of stories, but then several years later, when it comes time to zone, we have different opinions about what the vision was. We took the time to do that and I think you'll see the more recent an area plan is CPD is looking for that specificity which serves us all well. Secondly, I would venture to guess that there's less controversy on this than some others because we have transit on the corridor where we're directing density and Transit's been here. It's been here since 1994. It's been here actually since the early days of Denver, but light rail and its modern incarnation is here. And so there's a a lesson to what what can we do to guide transit where we want density. I will be available for questions and thank you for supporting this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Noble Sekou.
Speaker 3: Huh? First of all, my name is Sherman Siku. I am proud to represent the Black Star Action Movement. Was self-defense a voice for poor, working, poor and homeless people? Address 2514 Chapel Street. Born and raised five points since 1952. 1932. We stand opposed to this zoning change. What I learned this afternoon in operations meeting was looking at the criteria of the zoning and what its purpose is. Its purpose was not underlying to ethnically cleanse a neighborhood and drive out a population of black people and replace it with white folk. One set up for that. And yet that's what's been happening since 1982. Hmm. Now you got to get with David so you can explain that, because I couldn't believe what I heard today, that we were actually training people to look like they're listening when they're not. So they wouldn't violate rule one or see what a democracy fit in all of that. Is that for real? I need you to pay attention. 106. Look at me. Pay attention. Say. Because I know you know what's going on here. And we got active participants not only in the white community, but members of this board who represent black people who are running with this like running dog lackeys of capitalism. Well, it's all about the money. It's all about the money. You don't care about this neighborhood, your opinion about these people. And you are looking forward to no black people being there. Now, I understand how Geronimo better now understand how the Native American people felt. Is this how the West is won? And we continue the process, and there ain't no question about it. And you have no more ground to stand on. Well, guess what? Act like you ain't listening, because that's more authentic, because I'm watching what you do. But guess what? God's watching. Do you think you're going to get away with this? For real? For real? Well, come on.
Speaker 2: Bring your time is up, Mr. Psycho. King Harris.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is King Hezekiah Harris. I reside at 2634 Garfield Street. Own property in the area that is talking about being resolved. It seems that you have a number of people who are speaking in favor of this. And after hearing these lovely ladies, I felt like I should run out the door, as I am not nearly as well prepared to to say it as well as they did. But the reality is this. I've owned property in five points since 1975. And we have been looking forward to the opportunity to develop the Five Points community. That opportunity has arrived. And I think that the change in the zoning that you're talking about now is just another way of uplifting that opportunity. So I encourage you to move forward with the rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Harris. That is the end of our speakers. Will you first have questions from council? Are there any questions? Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yes, for Courtland Kizer. I'm kind of smiling because King's voice is so good.
Speaker 1: He just tell he's a pastor Hezekiah.
Speaker 5: But anyway, hey, I had a question around this RTD lot. I think this is really interesting because I know when we put this northeast down to neighborhood plan together for the protection of Curtis Park, it's a landmark district. Even the zoning that we're doing now is going to have some certain requirements around step setbacks and setbacks. And, you know, because it's a protected district right there. Couldn't you do something similar on this RTD lot? I mean, couldn't a portion of it be Zone C and mix five? And couldn't you, I don't know, put some requirements for some step backs on that on the on the parking lot. Yes. The well the property's already zoned x three. Yeah. And that's consistent with the plan recommendation for the portion of it that fronts California. So it would be an option to split zone it. And so on the front half that's facing downing C-Max five, that would be consistent with the plan. But the reality is that with the consolidated parcel in the way that the stations developed historically, you would have had an alley dividing it, which would have been a rational place to draw that line. The alleys no longer there. And generally, we would try to avoid creating a split zone situation like that. Yeah. So the thinking was if at some future point in time the station isn't there, that that would be the time to have a conversation about potentially up zoning, that one portion of the lot and the developer would have to come and just do it that way and rezone it. You know, the reason I say this is Denver City of Denver and RTD is looking seriously and I believe we will extend the 30th and Downing Station to 30th and Blake to connect with the commuter rail if that happens. RTD, you know, is talking about that lot being in play. And so I just wanted to have that conversation just to make sure I see there's a lot of other folks that have questions. Let me just ask this, because I think this cuts to the reason we're doing this rezoning. You know, when we did blueprint in Denver in 2010.
Speaker 1: Why wasn't this.
Speaker 5: Property, this this whole all these properties and these streets zoned at that time? Can you just explain that? Because I think that's a major reason why we're here today. Well, I believe it has to do with the mapping, the equivalent districts that at the time along Walton Street, you had a mix of B districts. Yeah. And, you know, generally, when you didn't have plan support for doing something different in the remapping effort in 2010, the first thing that you do is look to establish the equivalent zone district. So the the decision was made at the time, I think it was openly discussed and folks like John Noble have the specific history on it. But I believe Karla madison had conversations with the neighborhood and the decision was made to wait for the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan because at that time it was in process and imminent and coming up a year later. And that that was the route that they decided to take. Okay. I'm going to come back to that. I love my other colleague.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So either for Cortland or even Councilman Brooks, I remember when we voted on the you are a for this corridor and I can't even remember when that was. Now, in the last 12 year OC September, I remember hearing from at least one block of folks that lived on Welton, I believe in some Victorian homes that were really adamantly opposed to the area at the time because of fears about potential eminent domain on their properties. And I was wondering if those properties are covered in this map that you're drawing. And any information that either of you can provide about about that situation.
Speaker 5: I'll I'll comment first. Thank you for asking that question. And, you know, we went through Tracie Winchester's office, five points Business District to do the letters. In addition to that, I went to those houses and knocked on them. That included Denver Weekly News Leonora. That included the gentleman who came up here and said, Hey, they're going to rezone this here pretty soon. And that included another resident. I can't remember her name, but we went and talked to them and two of them were in support of it. The gentleman actually came to the planning board and he said, Oh, you know, I have some questions, you know, but you know, I'm not going to come out in opposition against it. But I do have some questions about this and. I wish we could have, you know, done some other things as well, but there was no outright opposition to it.
Speaker 0: And those homes are largely included in this map.
Speaker 5: They're all included in this map, yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Lemon. Yeah.
Speaker 4: So can you explain to me the relationship between that historic and Landmark District and the Sea Five in particular? What does that mean to the buildings that are there and how it's going to be redeveloped?
Speaker 5: Sure. Well, the the landmark review process for design kind of lays on top of whatever zone district is in place. So in the portion of the corridor that's included in the historic cultural district, properties that redevelop will be subject to that additional level of review that comes from the landmark process at the northernmost block of the corridor that's outside of the Landmark District. They won't be subject to that review, and that's essentially the effect of it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman, Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you. Madam President, I had a question about the origin of the C-Max three, the original C-Max three zoning.
Speaker 3: Councilman Brooks asked that question, and I had a question about the overlay of the urban renewal area and the Tift district and Councilwoman Shepherd asked that question. So all my.
Speaker 5: Questions have been answered. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Levitt, Councilman Brooks, did you have a question?
Speaker 3: You know what I'm going back to I'm.
Speaker 5: Going to bring up John Noble, because he was very intimately involved in this process with my predecessor, Councilwoman Carla madison. Joe talked to me about, I think Cortland set it up very well for you, saying that, you know, they wanted to wait. They didn't do it during the blueprint Denver rezoning this this parcel here but you guys wanted to wait to northeast downtown neighborhood plans, but we never got to it. During the zoning code update, there were three criteria that were looked at throughout the city as to what the new zoning should be. And one of them was, what's the current zoning on Welton Street from Park Avenue to 27th? There was one zoning that was higher intensity than the next block. Up from the 2700 block was middle intensity. And then the rest of the blocks were a lower intensity in in the old zoning code. And so that's what was recommended by staff during the 2010 zoning code. UPDATE That top section that we're dealing with now, zoned to three stories, that middle block to five storeys and below that to eight. So it's a very good, you know, just correspondents waiting for the new area plan because the new area plan would give more specific guidance. The new area plan, unfortunately, was running one year behind the zoning code updated. Now, there was you'll see there's a chunk missing that we're not rezoning tonight. That's already five stories. And I'm not entirely clear what what the discussion was during the zoning code update to say, well, we can accelerate that half of the block early and they did it and there wasn't any opposition to it. Okay. Thank you. Last question. I'm sorry. This is this is a legislative rezoning and armed omnibus zoning change that we voted on must have been a couple of months ago during the legislative rezoning, there was a change there that. Can you talk about the impact of that change? So what I understand it is that we don't we no longer have to come forward with a resolution first for a legislative rezoning. We can for legislative rezoning. We can just initially charge CPD to start the process. That's correct. So this ended up being a pretty lengthy process because we had to take that resolution through before we could even start working on the proposal. And my understanding is that the new process would be that any individual city council member would have the authority to initiate the the legislative rezoning process. And that would effectively skip that, you know, couple of months that we spent putting the resolution through the process. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Brooks, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I think maybe this is a question for Tracy Winchester. We heard from Mr. Merkle about his plans on his property. Do you know of any other properties where development may be imminent or someone is really looking that? Yeah. As soon as we get this passed, I'm just trying to, you know, see how much change we're going to see at once.
Speaker 4: Well, we're fortunate right now that we do have a lot of plans in the works. Most of it is further down southern part of Welton Street right now. Markel Homes is pretty much the main. Developer down to that end. In addition to across the street, we have Saint Bernard Properties which they developed property. What if you've been to the purple door to the little coffee shop? There's four different businesses there right there at 29th and Walton, as well as Studio Trope, those were both of them were two of the winners of the Walton Challenge. And they have plans to develop within the next 18 months. So they're across the street from Markelle. Holmes They're on the site that's closest to the light rail side. And so they will be developing, but they're there. They don't need the requirement of five stories are coming in a little bit under TMX. A little bit around four stories is what their plans are right now. So we do have development happening, but it's not contingent upon the zoning being changed from mixed three. That's a mixed 504.
Speaker 5: Stories would.
Speaker 3: Take a.
Speaker 4: Change. That's right. Excuse me. Exactly right. You're absolutely right. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay, good. I thought I was tracking there. Okay. Thank you for that answer.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: This question is either for Tracy or for Portland. I would like to know if you can share how many properties within these boundaries have already been resold within the boundaries of this area, not rezoning developed where it's required a separate one off zone application.
Speaker 5: Well, there I don't believe there have been any that have required rezoning as all of the properties within the boundary have the the three story zoning currently.
Speaker 4: Okay. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 6: Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And I see no other questions. So in a close the public hearing and ask for comments by council members. Councilman Rob. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Councilman Robb, you want to.
Speaker 3: Talk about.
Speaker 0: It's got to be.
Speaker 2: In an hour.
Speaker 5: Oh, no, don't you know, I am I'm excited to to finally see this come through. It's this has been a labor of love. And one of the reasons you don't see any opposition to this rezoning is there was a pretty deliberative process in getting information, phone calls, knocking on doors in and letters out to individuals and property owners pick up a value of getting their homes redeveloped, whether it's homes or businesses. I've actually received emails and letters from and phone calls from developers who have not purchased property just yet in this zone district who were saying, hey, can you hold off because they know the price is going to go up for the property owners . So this is actually a good what I like to say a good thing for property owners and it has nothing to do with the timing of this is just the way it happened. It just took a long time through the city. This was not because, you know, there's a setup here or anything like this. This is something that we've been trying to work on for four, three, three years. As soon as I got in office, Tracy Winchester, John Noble from Curtis Park, sat down with me and talked about this incongruity that we see on Walton with these parcels . And as I went back to my office, I have a Carla Carla Mattison list. And this was one of the things that she wanted to get done. And unfortunately, Orgill didn't say is this is what she wanted to get done in 2011 when she passed. And and so there's there's an emotional connection to this as well. But that's not the reason we need to do this. We need to do this because the criteria fits. David Braswell And.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 5: Everything lines up perfectly for this rezoning, the plans, the adopted plans, the northeast downtown neighborhood plan calls for this specific site. We had a lot of community input around this. We have business leaders like Jill who is saying, Hey, how come those folks across the street have a higher zoned district than we do? And so this is something that is the right thing to do. And we we're excited about it. You know, I also want to say that transformation is happening on Walton, and it is exciting. And I'm so glad that King Harris I love it when someone who's been in the district, I mean, 1975, I was minus four. At that at that time when he was just buying the property and and to see him say this is something that we've wanted for a long time, and to know that because of the protected district, the the, you know, the historic district, the landmark district, we can do smart development. We could do smart growth. And so we're excited. I will say this is the only part of the city where I just feel like we have so much going on. We have, you know, almost five, six TIFF applications. I was just talking to Tracey about on one street for just for this year. And so there's a lot of development going on. But I am confident in the systems, in the structure that have been in place. And so because of the the plans that are in place, the uniformity of district regulations and restrictions and also the public health and safety and general welfare, I'm in favor of this, and I hope that my other colleagues will do the same and be in favor of this and be a part of the transformation that's going on. Five points.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I couldn't help reflecting on the fact that maybe a bit of a tale of three cities here. So tonight we have a whole group of people advocating on behalf of five stories on a and.
Speaker 2: On a commercial.
Speaker 0: Corridor. And then was it last week or the week before? We had a vehement a group of people vehemently opposed to five stories on a commercial corridor in a separate part of the city. And then, you know, a year or two ago, we actually had a lawsuit again against a potential five story development that happened in my district by a separate group of neighbors. So, you know, it's just interesting to notice all these these differences among the city. But it reminds me of several cities that I've lived in where folks say, hey, if you don't like the weather, just wait 15, 20 minutes.
Speaker 2: It'll change, you.
Speaker 0: Know, get something new. But I'm glad to see the community and the Business Improvement District also in support of this. So happy to support you all tonight as well as my colleague, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I'll certainly be voting in favor of this legislative rezoning tonight. But I just want to.
Speaker 3: Congratulate Councilman Brooks in absentia, his predecessor, as well as all the people in the audience who've been working on this for years. A lot of pieces are being put in.
Speaker 5: Place, and so often it.
Speaker 3: Requires all the pieces to be put in place before the big thing.
Speaker 5: That you want to see happens. And it requires patience, it.
Speaker 3: Requires vision, it requires persistence. And that patience, that vision, that persistence that patients has been shown.
Speaker 5: Over many years.
Speaker 3: All the pieces are being set up, the most recent to having the urban renewal area established for the Weldon Street corridor, and now here the zoning for the Weldon three corridor. And the irony is that when.
Speaker 5: Things really pop down on the five.
Speaker 3: Points, people go, Wow, that was fast. But we know that it took a lot of work over a lot of time to get all those pieces together to make it happen. So I'm looking forward to being startled by how fast it all happened.
Speaker 2: So thank you. Councilman Nevett. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: You're. Speaker seven.
Speaker 4: Quick. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank everybody that's here tonight for doing the heavy lifting that you're doing. And I am not even mindful.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 4: All of the work that you've done. Just on a personal note, I've always wondered why when that particular corridor in Welton was built out, why there wasn't ever a station area plan done, and why it was, in my opinion, the Wilton three corridor that that rail system was ahead of its time and it was built. And there was a lot I remember a lot of RTD politics going on. And at the end of the day, it was a neighborhood that suffered. That's my perspective. And as a result, it started to fall between the cracks. And the idea that you're here tonight to empower the neighborhood and to lift the power of the neighborhood up is really important because as you know, as you're going through all of this, that everything in every neighborhood is always about the land and who owns it and how it's zoned. And it was to me, it was one of the greatest injustices that was done to. This particular part of town, because there was never during that time there was never any any strategy or any thought behind how we would have this station stop and how it would relate to the people that live there and how it would connect to the rest of the city. And it's so close to downtown and it has so many possibilities. And so I just want to say that I completely support this. I'm glad that the intersection of everything that's happening is happening. It's going to go fast for everyone that lives there. But I can't think of a better way for people that live in the neighborhood and own their homes to realize the American dream because it isn't silo thinking anymore. You know, it's just this and that. It all needs to work together. And I just want to, again, commend you, commend you for all of the work that you're doing in your neighborhood and you keep it up. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro and I see no other comments. I think that we are ready for the vote.
Speaker 0: Brooks Brown Fox. I can each layman i. Monteiro i. Nevitt I. Ortega, i rob Shepherd. Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Close to voting announced the results.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The zoning passes. Congratulations. Now we are ready for the next public hearing. Councilwoman Sheperd, will you please put Council Bill three or four on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of portions of 2800, 2900 and 3000 blocks of Welton Street from C-MX-3 to C-MX-5 in Council District 8. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of portions of 2800, 2900 and 3000 blocks of Welton Street from C-MX-3 to C-MX-5 in Council District 8. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-1-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06022014_14-0304
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I move. Excuse me. Yes, I move. That council bill 304 series of 24 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: The public hearing for council bill 304 is open. May we have the staff report? Mr. Heiser.
Speaker 5: It doesn't seem to be responding. And I don't know if I'll let me scroll through or anything. Yeah, it's on the desktop. Okay. So this is actually. Maybe that will go. Okay. All right. So this next rezoning proposal is for 2000 East 28th Avenue. The proposal is to rezone from existing few number 572 to new 50, number 636 under former Chapter 59. So by way of explaining what that means, we'll rewind a little bit and go back to the time when the city made a policy decision back in 2010 not to rezone existing pads as part of the overall citywide Denver zoning code update. This meant that about 400 distinct former Chapter 59 flood zone districts remain mapped within the city. And so one question is what happens if the owners of one of those old code pads wants to rezone what? We do have an ordinance that tells us what to do in that instance. And that's listed here at the top of this slide. That ordinance provides, spells out what the options are for these old code pads. One option is to rezone to a zone district, standard zone district under the new Denver zoning code. You could also rezone to a new paved district an additional option listed in. The second bullet point there is that you can rezone to a new pad under the former Chapter 59. You'll notice that the ordinance doesn't give the option of amending an old Code PD. It tells you that you can create a new old code pad. So even in the case of reusing 99% of the material from that old PD, which is the case with the proposal here tonight, technically a new PD with a new number needs to be created, and that PD replaces the old PD, which then ceases to exist . So that's the that's the background of what's being considered tonight. And you can see the proposed planning and development attached to the back of the staff report. You'll notice that it does reuse almost all of the material from the existing PD and has a few changes which will be explained here in the staff report moving forward. So this map shows the location of the proposed rezoning within the city, within Council District eight and within the Whittier neighborhood. Specifically, the property is located at the southeast corner of 28th AV and Race. The property itself is an embedded commercial shop at, you might call it, or a corner store type building. This particular building has multiple storefronts for individual businesses within the structure. It faces 28th. AV is about a third of an acre in size and as already mentioned, currently is on PD number 572 and the applicant is requesting to rezone to a new PD under the former Chapter 59. So a little background on PD number 572. It was created in 2005. The purpose of it was to facilitate the improvements at the time for Mandy's restaurant. The development standards for that PD are specific to the property as it exists, and that's a very common approach in some of these older pwds that the standards are written very narrowly. So the allowed building heights, for example, is exactly the height of the existing building. The allowed setbacks are exactly the setbacks of the existing building and on and on for pretty much all of the development standards that are in the pad. That was the standard approach at the time and that was also applied to the permitted uses within the structure. So the only uses that were envisioned at the time were Mandy's restaurant and an office space, and those are the only two allowed uses. Now furthermore, each of those uses has a limitation on the amount of square footage that it can occupy, and it's also specific to the amount of square footage that Mandy's restaurant occupied at the time. So what this has resulted in is that the you know, the tenants have changed over time. Now, instead of one restaurant and the space, there are two restaurants at the space, but they're not allowed to get any bigger than the original footprint of Mandy's because of the strict standards of the PD and how it's been written. Meanwhile, the storefront on the far left of the building, so this one here can only be used for office and sits vacant because there haven't been any office tenants that have shown interest in leasing the space, although many other potential leases have stepped forward with interest. They're not allowed to because they're not an office use. So the proposed PDD retains all of the provisions of the existing PD, which in most ways meets the current owners needs. But and this is the principal justification for pursuing the new PD is that it expands the list of allowed uses to include most of the permitted uses in the E2 district, the B2 being the reference point, because we're talking about a former Chapter 59 plan unit development and then furthermore removes all of the square footage limitations for the individual uses within the building. So if one of the restaurants wanted to expand, it would be able to under the provisions of this proposed putting that has a somewhat of a cascading effect on some of the other sections. When you change the use, you need to update the sections of the plan that are regulated or directly related to use. So off street parking and signage. So for example, originally you're allowed to have two signs in this PD because it envisioned having two uses the restaurant and the office use. This approach allows it to be more flexible. So we have to change that provision so that if each of the individual storefronts has a different business unit, each of those businesses is able to have a sign, for example. And then finally, there are some sections in the PD requirements that were waived because no new exterior construction is proposed and so they don't apply. So for example, your construction schedule or phasing those types of things don't apply in this situation. And so they were waived. So the adjacent properties in this area, almost everything in the neighborhood is zoned you as you b1 there is a you mx2x zone district map directly across the street. The current uses in the space. As I've mentioned, there are two restaurant tenants currently and then the vacant office space adjacent single family residential on all sides except to the north, which has an office building. And here's some photos of the property. So this top photo here is taken from the corner of 28th and Reyes looking across 20th as well as the the property to the bottom. So it's one largest building with the multiple storefronts. This is the alley and adjacent residential to the east and the tap image on the bottom image, you can see the adjacent single family residential to the west. The office building across the street is the image at top, and at the bottom is a shot of the rear of the property, its parking lot and adjacent single family. The Planning Board recommendation on this application is for approval. They made that recommendation on April 2nd. And beyond that, we followed our standard notification procedures throughout the rezoning process, including written notification to all neighborhood organizations in affected city council districts. And today, we have not received any comments on this particular application. The excuse me, the the normal five criteria that you're accustomed to seeing that is specific to the Denver zoning code. Remember, we're talking about former Chapter 59. And under the criteria for form a Chapter 59, there are four and those are listed here and we'll go through each of those. The first is consistency with adopted plans, of which there are three that apply here. The first is comp plan 2000. And there are there's consistency with this proposal with several comp plan 2000 strategies, mostly related to the promotion of retail commercial development, as well as encouraging the identification of areas where new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Blueprint Denver has a land use concept of single family residential and identifies the property as being within an area of stability. The street classifications for both East 28th and Raise is designated local for both. So although the blueprint Denver recommendation here is for single family residential and it's identified as an area of stability, the blueprint Denver definition of single family residential does acknowledge that single family neighborhoods can have a limited employment base. And this particular structure was constructed in an era of the 1920s, when it was common and customary to have corner store retail uses within residential neighborhoods. So by making the changes in the proposed PDE that increase the lease ability of the vacant, chronically vacant commercial space, it would help to enhance the stability of the Whittier neighborhood. The Whittier neighborhood has a plan that was adopted in 2000 that clearly expresses support for the concept of reestablishing commercial uses in locations where they have been historically located. And there are three strategies related to this. The first is land use and zoning strategy number three, which is to encourage effective use and redevelopment of underutilized, underutilized commercial facilities within the neighborhood. Urban Design Strategy six is to encourage the redevelopment of commercial sites to compatible retail services and economic development strategy. One is to inventory and evaluate vacant properties in order to recruit neighborhood businesses. So going back to the four criteria, we do find that there's consistency with the relevant adopted plans for the area. The second criteria is to reasonably necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and general welfare, which the finding is consistency given implementation of the city's adopted land use plans. The justifying circumstance for this rezoning is changed or changing conditions specifically at the time when the pad was originally written in 2005. It was envisioned that both the restaurant and office uses would be viable and with the chronic vacancy of the office space, it's been found that it's too limiting for that space to be successful with office being the only allowed use. And so this is a proposed correction to allow for a wider variety of commercial uses in the space. Fourth and last, the criteria is uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. This particular rezoning, because it's a pad for a single property, would apply only to the subject property. And so this criteria is met by virtue of the fact that no other properties would have a zoning designation within the city. So upon conducting this review, CPD does recommend approval based on the finding that all of the review criteria for new pads under former Chapter 59 have been met.
Speaker 6: I mean, you finished?
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. I didn't know you were about to say something else. We have two speakers I'd like to call Herb Kastner to the podium.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My name's Herb Kastner. I'm the applicant representing the property owner, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Mr.. Sekou.
Speaker 3: Some say cube like soccer moves self-defense. But I'm in poor working, poor, homeless, homeless people. Here we go. Prime example. I hope all are listening. Used to be, Piers. I mean, used to be Amanda's restaurant, Black, owned 30 years, ran into a situation the economy popped, couldn't get a refinance on a loan, but yet tired of covering folks over there. You've got to refinance. Twice. I was here. I watched it. Gentrification of my neighborhood. And now we have a white pub. They're looking to go back to the way the zoning was so he can expand his business and getting all the help that he need. Where was the help when M&A was going under? You cannot be serious. There is a contradiction here. All right. Make it easy for them. Make it hard for them. And now we got a white pub and a black neighborhood, and we lost a black institution that never got a chance to get 80 years like Bonnie Brae. Explain. So how does that happen? Is that accidental? Come on, y'all real? For real. And you're watching it happen. This is really getting scary. It's almost like free Germany. Nazi is the silence the non speaking to let it just flow. Why black people disappear in this town and nobody cares. Yeah. Nobody care where to go. Have anybody seen them? Are they working anywhere on any of the construction sites where they had where they go or they just, boop, there it is. They disappear. Oh, we just solve the negro problem. The Negroes are gone. Magic. Outstanding, America. And then you sit up here and you sit looked at black. Are you kidding me?
Speaker 2: Okay. We have questions from council members. Councilwoman Kenney. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Courtland, you mentioned or I was reading the staff report, but that there weren't a lot of changes from the original to the new party and the uses you focused a lot on for the office space. But you mentioned early on the specificity of the height and some of those things. And I'm wondering if you are using this opportunity or we are using this opportunity to also kind of give a little bit bigger envelope should they need to renovate, expand something like I just. Are we are we thinking towards the future or being so short sighted that we're just doing the teeniest changes that have to be made for.
Speaker 5: This particular economic challenge.
Speaker 0: Without thinking about what the next one might be?
Speaker 5: Know so we are not proposing any changes to the existing party beyond what's necessary to accommodate the change in use. So the specific standards for the building, for example, they remain as specific under this proposed party as they are currently. So no, we're not making any broader changes in the minimum necessary.
Speaker 0: No, I guess I. May I. Madam President, go ahead. The follow up question is for you. Why? Why? You know, I don't know the age of the building, but it's not uncommon for, you know, businesses to need to expand or update. And so would would it not be typical in other parties to be a little more general or similar in height to what the appropriate zoning would be in the code, even though there's restrictions in there that make it mean that you want to keep it a pudi.
Speaker 5: All of all of that is on the table. With the initial discussions with the applicant. The, the first thing that we talked about was remapping to the, um, x to x, which is located across the street. Another option would be to do a pad with more sweeping changes. Like what, what you discussed. Ultimately, it falls on the applicant and what they choose to apply for. And this applicant was mostly happy with the pad, didn't like the restrictive use list, but didn't see a need for anything else to be addressed. So it is applicant driven in this case that they chose to apply for this minor fix, if you will, to deal with the users and not open the door on everything else related to the potential development of the site.
Speaker 0: Madam President, one last question, which was why do you do you remember why they didn't choose or what the lack of fit was with the, um, x?
Speaker 5: Yes. So the um, x2x has compatibility standards, 4 hours of operation, which the existing PD does not have. So if rezoning to the um, x to x, they would be subject then to those new hours of operation, more limited hours of operation. Actually, not even the current restaurant business. It would be the next restaurant business that might come after that one.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Councilman Kennish, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to ask a few questions about parking and what the requirements are for a building that was built in the twenties. So if, for example, they wanted to turn the whole building into one big restaurant, are are the parking requirements per square foot the same in a building built at that time, or are they completely different? So I'm just wondering what the potential effect on the adjacent neighborhood would be. I don't know if there's a lot of on street parking. I haven't looked at this particular property, so I'm just curious about that.
Speaker 5: So the the PD prescribes the parking ratios. And it provides the specific number of spaces per square feet. I'm trying to find that now. So for the restaurant, use one space per 250 square feet is the standard for an office, use 1 to 400. Those are the same ratios that are in the current existing field for all other permitted uses. They would then be directed to the requirement as written in the B2 Zone District. So as part of that, your question is what if the whole thing became a restaurant? Would there be enough parking? The answer is yes. Under the prescribed ratio of 1 to 250 square feet, they they would have enough spaces.
Speaker 6: Okay. So given the fact that it's a twenties building, I know in some neighborhoods if you, you know, put a certain use in an existing older building, it didn't have all the same parking requirements, but because it's a pad that was already built into it, is that correct?
Speaker 5: No, actually, what you're describing would be a provision in the new Denver zoning code and it would be unaddressed in this period. And it has its own parking ratios that are prescribed.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. So I. I'm kind of frustrated here because, you know, we're taking a pod, which is something that, you know, we wanted to get rid of and we're replacing.
Speaker 5: It with a new pod. I mean, I know there's provision for doing.
Speaker 3: That, but, you know, we could not get to an ordinary zone district. I mean, this whole thing sort of reminds me of the story of the guy who goes to the county.
Speaker 5: Clerk and says, I want to I want to change my name. And the clerk says, well, what's your name? And he says.
Speaker 3: John Jacob Dingell. Hammerschmidt Clerk's like, Wow, okay, I understand you want to buy you want to change your name? What do you want to change it to? He says, Steve, Steve, Jacob, jingle Hammerschmidt.
Speaker 5: I mean.
Speaker 3: That's I feel like that's what we're doing here is changing, you know, one pad to another, you know, to accommodate a little use. But we're still.
Speaker 5: Working with this bad.
Speaker 3: Tool I have. I mean, don't know where to get. Well, maybe it's I don't want to, you know, put the applicant through more process to get to an ordinary zoned district. But I guess I'm looking to use or how did we.
Speaker 5: Get to the spot? Well, like I said, we we did have those conversations. It was the first thing we talked about was, you know, what standards on district would work for you. And I think that had, you know, the applicant was generally receptive to it until discovering the limitation on the hours of operation which the existing Whittier Pub currently operates outside of those hours. And so it was viewed as an impact to the existing business. That was not a risk that they wanted to take. And so they decided not to apply for that zone district and instead to go this route. And I guess you already know my answer because you referred to it, but this is a viable route that's available to people and they can apply for it and they did apply for it. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm I'm on the same tack.
Speaker 4: As.
Speaker 0: Councilman Nevitt and Councilwoman Sheperd. And I can I mean, excuse me, Councilwoman Kenney and I can read Councilwoman Sheppard's mind because she spoke it clearly in committee. We all questioned the Pudi and frankly looked at how we allowed rezoning to the old Pudi. But the way I want to phrase the question is these have more restaurant hours inside and outside than in a mixed two embedded retail zone. And this would allow so allow both a retail marijuana store or medical marijuana store, which are no longer allowed, I believe, or at least the retail would would would be allowed the medical might go, I don't think either could get in. So how does that lead to creating more stability for the neighborhood? Which planning in your report said that by doing this zoning change we were creating more stability? That was one of your rationalizations or reasons for the rezoning?
Speaker 5: Well, what I meant when I stated that is that the the commercial space that's been sitting vacant, they haven't been able to find someone to lease it for office use. There is indication and interest that, you know, non office users would jump at the chance. So you'd be removing a chronically vacant space that's been sitting there for a long time. It would have a neighborhood business in it.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that does make sense. So thanks, because that helps me with our criteria for rezoning, which we've been talking about tonight. I just don't think it's very predictable for people who are moving into the neighborhood when they see that sort of neighborhood, embedded retail, they expect one set of conditions and they're going to find another set.
Speaker 5: Okay. Would you like me to address the marijuana issue? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: Just what would be allowed and what wouldn't?
Speaker 5: Right. So the party doesn't say anything about marijuana, so it defaults to all the other city laws governing how where marijuana related uses can be established at this particular location. It's about 750 feet away from Manual High School. So in licensing, if someone tried to establish that use, they would run into the standard of not being able to be within 1000 feet of a school. So it's zoning doesn't address it, but licensing does address it. And you would not be able to have marijuana at this location.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks, did you have another question?
Speaker 5: You know, I'll do it because he's right here. Yeah, I just had a question. It's 750 feet from manual. Do we do any provisions with city owned buildings, library libraries within even shorter? I don't do know that at all. I'm not sure. I don't I don't look it up in the light. Okay. Okay, great. Okay. Schools, I know for sure, are included. Yeah.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, that looks like all the questions. So I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yep. Thank you. This is kind of a tricky one. We we kind of debated this and in committee, and I think we need to split it up into sort of issues. One is a business owner that is trying to grow their particular business and make sure that the hours of operation is not hindered and their business is not hindered. And then two is a macro kind of PD issue that we have in the city that has certain allowances for applicants that for one, it's their right to be able to choose this. But we have this kind of policy conversation and level up here saying, you know, we want to start moving away from Pwds. Well, if we want to start moving away from Pwds, we need to have that solidified with CPD. And I believe at the time that this was coming through CPD, we did not have a director, which again kind of points out that, you know, there needs to be some vision around this and we need to have kind of a deeper conversation around this issue. And in my opinion, the applicant shouldn't suffer for something that I think is a is a city issue. So I am. With that being said, I'm in favor of this moving forward with this kind of caveat that I hope that we can go back to the drawing board and have a larger conversation, whether it be with Councilman Rob and Ludi, to say how do we handle applicants that come in that need to, you know, that want to have amendments to the certain pwds? How do we want to handle it so we don't come to this this point again where we don't, you know, as a city, we want to be able to work for all. We want to be able to make sure that businesses can work. But at the same time, we have a certain vision that we're trying to to understand here and see implemented in our city. So I'll be voting in favor of this and excited to to see that this business thrive here on the 20/24.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Well, actually, I just wanted to address my colleague, Councilman Nevitt, regarding the John Jacob jingle. Hammerschmidt wanting to change his name to Steve. John Jacob, jingle Schmidt. So Councilwoman Robb and I initiated a very lively discussion around this particular issue at Land Use and Transportation Committee. We both had a lot of heartburn over precisely what you expressed a while ago, and I believe we have adequately expressed that heartburn to both others on Land Use and Transportation Committee as well to community planning and development. And they have heard loud and clear that, you know, we you know, there's and then also, I took the opportunity to speak to Mr. Hancock about this. It is unwieldy to be moving forward with two codes four years after, you know, a very intense rezoning and comprehensive citywide zoning code revision. So it has all been duly noted. And there is a firm commitment from CPD to move towards the day when we will no longer allow such a thing and we will be pushing people into coming into conformity. With Ozone District that is appropriate in the new code. However, we couldn't deal with that hiccup regarding this particular situation. So we all recognize that. And I will be supporting Councilman Brooks in this endeavor this evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing other comments. Let's take the roll call on council fell three or four.
Speaker 0: Brooks.
Speaker 5: High.
Speaker 0: Brow high butts I can each high layman monteiro nevett.
Speaker 3: Grudging grudgingly I.
Speaker 0: Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd, I. Madam President, I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, close to voting the results.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The zoning passes. We have a third public hearing this evening. Council Bill 30504 See? What do I do? Councilwoman Sheppard, will you please put Council Bill three or five on the floor?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I move that the following Bill Council Bill 305 Series 2014 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Public hearing for Council Bill 305 is open. And may we have a staff report.
Speaker 5: Yes. Good evening. My name is Tim Watkins. Community Planning and Development present tonight the rezoning application for property property located at 3600 East Alameda. Other addresses as part of this property under consideration is three one and 319 South Garfield Street as well as 314 South Monroe Street. Property, though, is located in Central Denver in Council District ten, in the Cherry Creek neighborhood, southeast corner in an area known as Cherry Creek Triangle. The site is just over an acre in size that fronts Alameda, which is a parkway that connects Pulaski Park like one block to the west, and Byrnes plot Burns Park, like three blocks to the east. And it's just one block north of the Cherry Creek Greenway. Here's a photo of the site. Existing building on the site from Monroe Street and alameda looking to the east. This is the view of the site from Alameda and Garfield looking to the Southwest. The majority of the site is actually service parking. The building existing building footprint area occupies only about 20% of the site. The applicant is Rachel L Trust, represented by Robert Smith. The applicant is present tonight and is available to respond. Any questions or comments that you might pose to them? The current zoning is general business or B for this district allows commercial uses adjacent to arterial streets and also permits residential, single family and multi-family uses. There are two waivers.
Speaker 3: Applicable to the site.
Speaker 5: Weaver, 74, has a 72 foot height limit, as well as some use limitations, as well as waiver age 60 and both of these wave intensive commercial industrial manufacturing and warehouse uses. There are also two overlay districts, year one adult use and your two billboard uses. And so the proposed rezoning to the new zoned districts would retire all of these existing entitlements and replace with two zone districts, two proposed zone districts, CMCs five and CMC. I would just point out in the first rezoning case that we heard related to the Welton Street Station that we were talking about split zoning and Cortland mentioned
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 2000 East 28th Avenue from PUD #572 to new PUD under Former Chapter 59 in Council District 8. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 2000 East 28th Avenue from PUD #572 to new PUD under Former Chapter 59 in Council District 8. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-22-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06022014_14-0305
|
Speaker 5: And so the proposed rezoning to the new zoned districts would retire all of these existing entitlements and replace with two zone districts, two proposed zone districts, CMCs five and CMC. I would just point out in the first rezoning case that we heard related to the Welton Street Station that we were talking about split zoning and Cortland mentioned generally not practiced. There are times when it is necessary to implement the vision plan and I will demonstrate tonight how that is the what we feel is the best opportunity to implement a vision that set forth clearly in an adopted plan. So I'll be addressing that throughout the presentation. So a look at the existing context. As I mentioned, there's existing commercial office and surface parking. The area is served by multiple bus routes on Alameda, North Cherry Creek Drive and Colorado Boulevard. And Alameda Avenue is a dividing point for transition along Alameda between the lower scale residential in Cherry Creek to the north and commercial and mixed uses to the south in the Cherry Creek Triangle. There is a recent trend of investment and redevelopment in the Cherry Creek Triangle to the South. Here's a view of property to the east across from Garfield Street. A four story office. To the south, we see redevelopment currently underway under CMCs eight zoning, which was recently resumed. And a recent development about five years old is a multifamily mid-rise project to the west across from Monroe Street and fronting Alameda. This particular project implemented or further improved the Alameda Parkway, which is very much a neighborhood priority. And you see this 20 foot setback as applied and enhances the condition along the street between development and the street for both the visual qualities along Alameda for motorists as well as the pedestrians and cyclists using using the parkway to the north across from Alameda is vacant property and the lower skilled residential to the north. So the public review process has followed our standard notification and outreach efforts. I'm very appreciative to the applicant has done a great job reaching out to applicable registered neighborhood organizations, property owners and written notice. Receipt of application and hearing notices have been sent to applicable neighborhood organizations and council districts. Planning Board Public Hearing was held on April 2nd, 2014, which resulted in unanimous recommendation of approval. And there have been three letters of support submitted on behalf of this project, and we have also provided the proper legal posting written notification for this hearing this evening. So I'd like to speak to the five criteria applicable to current Denver zoning code. First, starting with consistency with adopted plans, comprehensive plan 2000 encourages infill development that provides housing that meets increasingly diverse needs in a manner that is consistent with surrounding neighborhood character. Blueprint Denver The concept land use shows the Alameda excuse me, formerly known as Alameda, but now the Cherry Creek Triangle as an area of change and intended to evolve into a regional center such that future land uses serve not just the surrounding neighborhood, but also serve neighborhoods throughout the city. And this is appropriate given the the regional service provided by Colorado Boulevard, Alameda Avenue. These are arterials that do bring people from across the city, as well as the Cherry Creek Parkway, bringing folks to this area from throughout the city in the region. Alameda fronts the property to the north. Blueprint Denver Street classification for the street is mixed use arterial and the two side streets Monroe and Garfield are local streets recently adopted. Cherry Creek Area Plan also shows the intent for this area to evolve into a regional center. And you'll note that I've highlighted the property, the subject property proposed for rezoning in the red box and that there are actually two building heights recommended for for this particular area. And the intent here is to create a transition from a five story Alameda frontage, which is considered to be most appropriate to the lower scale residential to the north, and then transitioning up to eight stories and then to 12 stories for the the bulk building height transition. So also contained in the Cherry Creek Area Plan is encouragement to improve the Alameda Parkway. And this includes encouraging private investment adjacent to Alameda such that new development fronts and addresses new buildings on Alameda that can improve , placemaking and improve the public realm. That this can also create a vibrant urban mixed use district, especially office and residential in the proposed or in the recommended regional center area. The plan also encourages adopting form based and context based zoning the new Denver Zoning Code and finally the building mass transition with the five storey edge facing Alameda , transitioning up to eight storey and then 12 storeys to the south. These graphics are taken from the adopted Cherry Creek Neighborhoods Plan showing the intended vision for improving the Alameda Parkway. It shows today's condition. And then a proposed condition. And you can see the intent to provide amenities in terms of landscaping, new walkways, and then the new development fronting and activating this parkway. And so to implement and improve the Alameda Parkway vision, a 20 foot setback is is currently a requirement in place and is applicable to both sides of Alameda. Also applicable to this site are other regulatory controls, including a 75 foot height limit within 175 feet of protected residential districts. And you can see in the highlighted yellow areas these are protected residential districts. G RH three The current PD applicable to the vacant, partially vacant site is not a protected district, so the Red Hat area results in a 75 foot height limit in this rather peculiar scalloped form, as you can see. And so this is the resulting bulk playing given some of the regulatory controls in place. You also see the 20 foot parkway setback as the applicant is actually proposing to zone districts to implement this transition from five storey to eight storey applicable to this area. Fronting Alameda. So try to provide this graphic to make it visible and comprehensible at a glance. But the applicant is proposing CMCs five at a depth of 40 feet. 20 feet of that depth would be the applicable parkway setback, with a 20 foot distance remaining four cm x five and then the remaining portion to the south would be CM eight, a portion of that with the 75 foot height control and then some of that allowing for the 410 feet allowed under CMC zoning. I would point out that the 20 feet of CMC five is the depth allowed for CMCs, or it's the step back depth when you mix five and see Acceder adjacent to protected residential district. So we staff felt that that was an appropriate depth to implement that transition between five and eight storeys. So the second criteria, uniformity of district regulations find that these two zoning districts would result in that uniformity uniform application of district regulations and further the public health, safety and welfare through implementation of adopted plans. The justifying circumstances changing circumstances include the fact that there is a recently adopted neighborhood plan, that there is underutilized property in terms of today's standards and market demand, and that there is a surrounding pattern of investment and development in the neighborhood. And this also would result in consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent and finding consistency with all the plan criteria or the rezoning criteria. CPD recommends approval for rezoning to these two zoned districts. See them x five and see if say thank you.
Speaker 2: We have three speakers. I call on them one at a time, Robert, and I can't see the last name, can Smith?
Speaker 3: Madam President. City Council members. My name is Bobby Smith. I represent the applicant in this rezoning for your consideration tonight. I'd like to thank him for all of his fine work. And I'd like to thank you all for your consideration this evening. And I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Increasing.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I'm back again to my neighborhood. As Councilwoman Robb knows, I'm a resident and property owner for the last 15 years and I live on 217 South Jackson Street, literally right behind Monroe. So I'm here as vice president of the Cherry Creek Eat Cherry Creek East Association. I was elected as vice president recently, and I had joined last year, mainly because of my work in the Five Points area. I felt that the experience that I was gaining in the last two and a half years should be used as well in my own personal neighborhood. So my fellow board members felt the same way and and selected me as VP. So I'm today here speaking in support of this rezoning application because this request is consistent with the Cherry Creek Area plan. We appreciate Smith, Jones, Partners Awareness, Insights and tivity to the public right away. Requirements for Alameda Parkway. We are encouraged that they want to enhance the pedestrian and the multimodal transit connections between Cherry Creek East and the Cherry Creek Triangle. So if you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask me. I will be here. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Chester.
Speaker 3: You know, I can't do it alone. I can't do it. Here we have a project that we support because what the project works is a possibility that maybe we'll get some jobs out of this and maybe, you know, some members in our community and some subcontractors and maybe we can go to work, so maybe that we can afford the housing being built in our neighborhood, which is beyond our means right now. See, part of the deal in being part of this city is that we're all connected in some way, form or how. And for those who are. Blessed. Too much that is given. Much is expected not to do less, but to do more. We broke. We're done. We need help. But we're not begging because we got skills, too. And if this city is going to be a diverse city and not have the unintended consequences of turning itself into an elitist town like Boulder, then we got to do something different. We have to do something different. And I know we can do better than this. We got to do better. So I ask.
Speaker 5: Myself, why? What?
Speaker 3: Why am I here, man? Why am I here? People trying not to listen, but to look like they're listening. Why am I here? Well, I'm here because I refuse to quit. I can't quit. I'm stuck. So think about it as you going about building your projects up. The councilman. I can't even say his name knows about minority serves. Kind of looks like one sometime. He knows who they are. Enrolled him in the process so he can get you some votes. I didn't say his name. I don't care. So it can be personally found. No, I'm not finished yet. But I think. Okay. Well, I think I'll just.
Speaker 7: Go on back the girls, because I'm not going to take a lot of questions from.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. This question is for Mr. Smith. Mr. Jacob Helmer Smith. I just thought it might be educational for you to explain the relationship of this project with the one to the south of it, the one that looked like a lot of other lots in Cherry Creek right now, the dirt lot with the cranes, because you've planned them to really coordinate. As I understand.
Speaker 3: We have a patent pending y'all's consideration tonight. The intent is, were the developers of the project immediately to the south of what's before you this evening. And that was zoned by you all a little over a year ago. Four CMCs eight were under construction now. And the idea with this proposal this evening is that we would start with a five storey edge along Alameda as the transition from the Cherry Creek East neighborhood to the north across the existing Alameda Parkway, which would in our new development of were successful tonight with rezoning set the stage for a future Alameda Parkway, improvements of five stories, setback and transition to meet the project that we currently have under development at CMC eight to the South.
Speaker 0: Okay. And does the parking work together or not?
Speaker 3: No. We've our intentions pending Earl's approval tonight would be to have this project be a completely standalone self marked as our project to the South as self park. All the parking hidden from the street view completely encompassed within the building.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. I see no other questions, so I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for comments. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. This is another example of huge private investment in the Cherry Creek area, of which we have seen many examples of lately. But I want to point out, as Tracy Winchester knows so well, while in a lot of areas we invest with tax increment financing in infrastructure and in attracting development in Cherry Creek, we don't have to worry about attracting development. We do that pretty well, it seems. But that doesn't mean that public investment in infrastructure isn't needed. Mr. BROOKS. Or excuse me. Mr. BROOKS. Not you. Mr. Smith talked about setting the stage for the future. Alameda Parkway developers can set the stage, but there's no light rail in Cherry Creek. We're not talking about what Joel Noble.
Speaker 4: Spoke about, where light rail was already in place in five points.
Speaker 0: We don't really it's designated a parkway. But this is the one stretch of Alameda between First Avenue and Alameda to the east of Colorado Boulevard that isn't planted in the median. It's River Rock. It really doesn't look like Parkway. There are not trees along this side consistently of the street. Some reconfiguration needs to be done and it's going to cost money. And my constituents, long after I'm gone, I'm sure at least gone from this dais, I might still be on this earth, will be asking for those improvements. So I really want to put that out there because a lot of you will be around the next time we have a bond issue. And I'm working very hard to be sure we set the stage publicly because we can't rely on the private investment to do that. There are also you have a letter in front of you on your desk from the Cherry Creek East neighborhood, things that I have talked about before, as well as the Alameda Parkway. They talk about the Garfield Bike Boulevard that is in the planning phase this year. And I hope there will be implementation money that goes all the way from Cherry Creek, the creek up to City Park. There is also in the plan a proposed bike, PED Bridge over Cherry Creek from Garfield on the South over no funding for that. So that's a very important improvement. So I just want to keep pointing out that as we put the people here, we really have to make the investments. But I will be supporting this rezoning tonight and lobbying you in the future for those investments.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb and I see no other comments. Let's go for that roll call.
Speaker 0: Rob. Hi. Sheppard Brooks. Hi, Brown. I fats. I can eat lemon i. Monteiro, I. Ortega. Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Okay. All righty. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 0: For.
Speaker 2: Council. Councilman Lopez. Okay. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The zoning does pass. Thank you all for your good patience and goodwill. And I am going to have to say that this meeting is a journey.
Speaker 0: Denver eight TV York City your source.
Speaker 1: Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community. Your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 3600 East Alameda from B-4 with Waivers UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-8 in Council District 10. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 3600 East Alameda from B-4 with Waivers UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-8 in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-22-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05192014_14-0424
|
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for that proclamation. We have a second proclamation this evening, and I would like to call upon Councilwoman Lehman to read proclamation number 424.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. In recognition of James P McIntyre, director of purchasing upon his retirement. WHEREAS, James P McIntyre started his career with the city as a staff to analyst on May six, 1991, and worked his way through the ranks, becoming associate buyer, senior buyer.
Speaker 1: Supervisor and.
Speaker 4: Deputy Director before promoting his current position as Director of Purchasing in 2006. And. Whereas, his vision shifted the culture, clarified notes, empowered his staff, and established a career growth opportunity structure for the division. And. Whereas, as director, he diligently served on the Board of Directors and was seated on the Executive Committee for the Rocky Mountain.
Speaker 1: Minority.
Speaker 4: Supplier Diversity Council and Choir Chorale collaborated with the local Chamber of Commerce in order to foster relationships with numerous.
Speaker 1: Small minority and women.
Speaker 4: Owned enterprises. And.
Speaker 1: Whereas, he served on the advisory board for the U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance, and he has encouraged building.
Speaker 4: Relationships with organizations nationwide.
Speaker 1: To capitalize on.
Speaker 4: The benefits of cooperative agreements for the betterment of the city. And. Whereas, James diligently served city agencies and staff throughout his career and managed firm and expenditures in excess of $2 billion and guided cost saving efforts of $31 million.
Speaker 1: For more than eight years as a director. And. Whereas, James.
Speaker 4: Has been the steady hand at the helm of the purchasing division. He is widely appreciated and respected for his leadership within the city, among his contemporaries and business leaders throughout the nation. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one. The Council hereby recognizes James P McIntyre for his 23 years of service to the city and county of Denver. Section two The Council. Thanks, James, for his dedication to the residents of the city and county of Denver and wishes him well in the next stage of his life. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and the county of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to Mr. James P McIntyre.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Lagman. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: I move the proclamation for to four series of nine of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 2: It's been moved and notably seconded comments by counsel. Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: It is my pleasure to read this proclamation.
Speaker 1: James is what I call a nearly.
Speaker 4: Native of Denver. He was born somewhere else but came in when he was one year old and has lived in the city and county since.
Speaker 1: And now he's going to move to Chicago.
Speaker 4: So the shame of it all. Well.
Speaker 1: It has been such a.
Speaker 4: Pleasure for me to know, James and to work with James.
Speaker 1: He is wonderful to ask questions to.
Speaker 4: He get I give immediate responses.
Speaker 1: He explains things to me which is really important and helpful. And he's just acted as an incredible.
Speaker 4: Leader to this city, and especially when he's dealing with.
Speaker 1: Money, things and purchasing. And so I know that we will miss him, but.
Speaker 4: I wish him well in his next step in life.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Jim is really, really sad to see you go to Chicago, right? When we traded Jay Cutler over there, you get to go watch him instead of Peyton Manning. And I think we're going to lose somebody great to a great city and we're going to lose somebody from our great city. But I know that whatever you do out there, you're going to really make an impact. And I got to work with you a few times. And you've always been a very classy person. Very. Person, very diligent, very thoughtful and knowing that you're from Denver. I know why you're right. And so there's there's something to be said about people who choose to serve the public in our city and that they're Denver residents. It makes it ten times better because you go back and go to sleep in the same city that you had to you serve. So thank you. Congratulations.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Nevett.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. It may have brought Councilwoman Layman pleasure to read this proclamation, but it didn't bring me any pleasure at all to hear it. I think it's outrageous that Jim McIntyre is retiring that completely. Well, okay, you're retiring. Well, I'll live with it. I got to say, Jim McIntyre has been a pillar of integrity and rigor in the purchasing department, and that has stood the city and county in very good stead, because the the the purchasing process, particularly for big high dollar contracts, can be very fraught. People get very excited about it. A lot of money is at stake. And the process, the processes that Jim McIntyre has put together have withstood all the slings and arrows that could be thrown at it from all of the disgruntled bidders, and they've always stood up. So Jim McIntyre's work has saved us all a lot of pain and heartache, but I am still sorry to see you go. Chicago. Who comes up with this stuff? But yeah, I guess. But, you know, Jay Cutler is a crybaby. And Jim back there. I know crybaby. The guy, they got good sausage. Anyway, thank you, Madam President. Jim, sorry to see you go, but thank you for all the great work you've done for the city. It's been a real pleasure working with you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Leavitt, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I think the Chicago angle has has surprised a lot of us. I'm from Illinois to here, and I really do. I really recommend the go west young man approach works out a lot better in the long run. You really have been helpful and help in analyzing the contracts, and I appreciate the way you've helped me think through some of the concerns I have had when they arise. So thank you, Jim. You've made a true impact and I will miss you. But now I have to question all this.
Speaker 1: Chicago.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you, Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess it could be worse, Jim. You could be moving to Seattle and then we'd really resent it. I think you were one of the first people I worked with in the city and county of Denver on process. I knew very little bit very little about the city's RFP process and even less about purchasing. And I don't know if I should even mention what we were working on. But just for those of you are curious. Parking kiosk at the time. So that's probably information that you'll never have to use again. I congratulate you on your retirement.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 4: Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: All this talk about Chicago and losing you to Chicago, I think I figured something out. We should figure out who was doing the exit interview and in the contract. Jim must send us pizza from Gino's East on Superior. You send us that, we'll write you a great letter of reference. Oh, right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. I think we are ready for the vote.
Speaker 1: Liman. Lopez All right. Monteiro Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Brooks. I thought I heard in college, I. Lopez. Hi, Madam President.
Speaker 2: I found a secretary close to voting nounced the results. 1212 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilwoman Lehman, would you like to call somebody up to the podium?
Speaker 4: I think I'd love to hear from Jim Mack.
Speaker 2: I think that would be an excellent idea. Mr. McIntyre? Oh, he's got a he's got an agent coming by.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Adrian Benevides, and I am the executive director of the Department of General Services. And if I may speak for a couple of minutes before Jim comes up and and talks to you.
Speaker 4: You know, this is one of those things that it's.
Speaker 1: Wonderful for Jim and his family who are here with him tonight. And I'm sure he will.
Speaker 4: Introduce everybody to you. But it's also bittersweet.
Speaker 1: For us.
Speaker 4: Because we are losing a strong leader in our department and for the city.
Speaker 1: You know, I met Jim nearly three years ago when I came to the city and we hit it off right away. And I thought, you know, I'm not going to come here and talk to you about all of the great things he's done in purchasing and and read statistics to you. But I will mention that he and I had very similar procurement philosophies. He really had an emphasis, as do I, on doing things better, not just being happy with the status quo, but looking at how we can do this better, how we can serve our customer better. He has done several things with changing the process as you guys are aware of couple of ordinances on changing the processes. Just this past year, he did a reorganization within his division that provided much better opportunities for his staff. And as you all also know, the city has been very devoid of any procurement scandals. And that really speaks to Jim's leadership and his emphasis on ethical behavior at excuse me, and the training.
Speaker 4: That he provides to his staff. One of the things he also did.
Speaker 1: That I strongly embrace was his emphasis on his staff. If you look.
Speaker 4: At and I'm sure you guys have worked.
Speaker 1: With many of our buyers, you see a lot of them are my children's age because he does something different than other procurement directors. He invests in people. He brings them in and he teaches.
Speaker 4: Them.
Speaker 1: How to be procurement professionals. And.
Speaker 4: You know, he doesn't do it just from the philosophy that we can develop these young people and we can provide a career for them. But he looks at it.
Speaker 1: As How can we learn from them with the expertize, particularly with social media.
Speaker 4: And computers.
Speaker 1: And everything else? And just a fresh perspective at procurement has made a huge difference in our department, and it comes from.
Speaker 4: Jim and his investment in his staff. He also has.
Speaker 1: A huge concentration on vendors. He meets with vendors all the time where he will explain our processes, explain how they can take advantage of opportunities within our city. As you know, we initiated a major Mwb program for goods and services this past April.
Speaker 4: But even prior to that.
Speaker 1: I can tell you from the last couple of years, he has made that a major emphasis working on contracts to have minority and women's participate in minority and women owned businesses, participate in city contract opportunities.
Speaker 4: So he has.
Speaker 1: Done that and with this new program, we'll be able to even do more. He has also added immensely to our department's leadership. He works very well with all of our with his peers, our other division leaders, has been supportive of them and teaching them and helping work through processes with them and actually makes for some fun meetings that we have at our staff meetings. One of the other things that he does, which really endeared him to me, is that some of the things that are very important to me are.
Speaker 4: Also.
Speaker 1: Extremely important to him. One of those that he.
Speaker 4: Places high priority on.
Speaker 1: Is his family. Like I said, they're here tonight. But I know you made some comments about Chicago, and I'll let him explain that to you. But that was a sacrifice he made for his family in going to Chicago. One of the other things he does is, you know, he wears his culture on his sleeve. You won't know how much we talk about Irish culture and the importance that it has to him. And that's important to me because my culture is also important as well as traditions. And of course, there's something I don't know a lot about, but I've learned a lot, which is also important. And that's golf, you know, and.
Speaker 4: He can talk your ear off about that.
Speaker 1: But finally, the way this came forward with that was not anything I did. But it was his. Staff. His staff that put this together and the proclamation and many of them are here tonight, and I wanted them to stand so you can recognize how endeared he has become to all of them. So if his staff members could stand. Hey. So with that, I will just say that he will be very missed by our department.
Speaker 4: But by the city as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Benevides. Mr. McIntyre.
Speaker 5: Madam President, members of City Council, thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule and your work to do tonight. I'll try to make this brief. I do have my family here. I'd like to introduce my lovely wife, Tammy, who's not only beautiful, but she's also very talented and has a great opportunity in Chicago . So I'm following the money. And my daughter Amanda, my son Matt and my new son in law, Brandon Eriksen, they're getting married in December. Thanks for being here, guys. I really appreciate you coming. I was going to say that Denver's just too tame. I want to go to Chicago.
Speaker 3: Mix it up, you know, in the mix.
Speaker 5: But really, it's it's a great opportunity for my wife and I. We're very excited about the move, you know, to this body. I want to thank you and and the administration take the time to do that. I've always had a lot of freedom in managing this department of always feel, you know, unhindered and and and interfered with and as counsel, Nevitt said some of these situations, they do get very emotional and they do get touchy. And it's a testament to this organization and how, you know, quality the people of this council are and the administration is to let our processes work. Key things like vendor selection in the right perspective. And it's made my job very easy. So thank you to that for all your support over the years. To my colleagues around the city, you know, at this point of your career, it really gets down to relationships and the friendships and the mentors I've had. The people that have allowed me to mentor them means so much to me. It's been very gratifying and it's meant a lot to me in my career, to my staff. I think you all know that for me, it's it's hard to find John McIntyre, the guy, and Jimmy Carter, the purchasing director. You know, it is kind of who I am. And you folks are such a big part in my life. We spend a lot of time together every day. I absolutely love this department. And that's of course not because of what we do, but because of what we've meant to each other and what we've built together. Thank you so much for your support. To me, your friendship to me. I really am going to miss you all terribly. And you know, this job changed my life. And there's a lot of people like me who come here with this lofty goal of, I just want to pay my bills. That's how lofty my goals were when I started here 23 years ago. And it gave me a career. It allowed me to to raise my kids in a way I really never dreamed possible and send them off to school and watch them grow into the fine adults they've had here. So, I mean, that's such a testament, right, to be able to work somewhere in a place, an environment and a culture that changed your life. And that's what this organization did for me. Thank you so much, everybody. I'm going to miss you all.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr.. I have another proclamation. This one is going to be read by Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman, will you please read proclamation number four, four one.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in recognition of James P. McIntyre, Director of Purchasing, upon his retirement. In recognition of James P. McIntyre, Director of Purchasing, upon his retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05192014_14-0441
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr.. I have another proclamation. This one is going to be read by Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman, will you please read proclamation number four, four one.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I'd be happy to. Proclamation 441 2014 Designating May 18 through May 24th as Public Works Week in Denver in congratulating the Denver Public Works Department's ten employees of the Year. Whereas Denver Public Works through its employees consistently delivers safe, high quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining the rights of way, streets, alleys, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings and signage and manages contracting, procurement and cash sharing programs that meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works makes significant contributions to our built environment managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and multimodal transportation options. Whose efforts contributed to Denver receiving a gold designation this year as a walk friendly community and the city being selected in the intensive two year People for Bikes Green Lane Project, which provides technical assistance in the installation of protected bike lanes. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works is committed to continuous improvement, organizational development and strategic planning and is coordinated the training of nearly 300 public works employees through Peak Academy, identifying 36 innovations with an average savings of more than 10,000 and dollars cities. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works is focused on sustainability and clean air and water with its annual street sweeping program that removes more than 42,000 cubic yards of debris and dust from Denver streets each year. And by expanding its use of alternative fuels, by purchasing compressed natural gas refuge vehicles and opening a CNG fueling station for use by city vehicle operators, and by expanding the city's composting program and pursuing funding to transition more homes to a more efficient, cart based trash collection service that reduces illegal dumping. And. WHEREAS, designating May 18 through May 24th as Public Works Week in Denver acknowledges the important services provided by the 1100 employees of the department. And. WHEREAS, The Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2013 for their achievements. And would you stand as I read your names, Jason Winokur Capital Projects Management. Chloe Thompson Finance and Administration. Adrian Coleman Fleet Management. Luis Gallardo Right of way enforcement and permitting. I may have mispronounced his name so much he didn't recognize it. Jeremy Hammer. Right of way services. Cindy Patton Policy Planning and Sustainability. Patrick Quinton of Solid Waste Management. Jesse Contreras Street Maintenance. Ron Smart Traffic Engineering Services. And Moon Pan Wastewater Management. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council and of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council designates the week of May 18th through May 24th, 2014, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2013 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the Department and City and Section two that the Clerk of the City and County of Denver shall attest and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and the copies hereof be forwarded to Denver Public Works and the ten public works employees listed above.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I move to adopt proclamation 441.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 1: I always enjoy doing this proclamation. I think it's wonderful that when street sweeping starts again and when we get so busy on our street paving program, when even more people are biking and walking on our sidewalks and bikeways, that we really celebrate the. People who make all of that happen, and I'm glad to do that tonight. I am very proud of the employees of the year. That is an outstanding achievement. And I'm saying this to anyone who is here or is listening because there are 1100 employees in public works in there are only ten of you. So that's huge. Maybe this is making your career, as Jim McIntyre talked about, there just so many things that the department does. And I know many of my colleagues will probably want to chime in, but I don't think a day goes by that we are not calling public works. Talking with Nancy Cohn. Talking with George Delaney. The proclamation lists a lot of this. Do I need to mention also the bond program and all the implementation of that program? So I'm happy to do this. And I want to give a special nod to Cindy Patton, who works in my district all the time. I know she works in many of yours. She should be cloned. I don't know some of the other recipients as well as I know Cindy. But if you're as amazing as she is, you should be clone, too. And then we could have more public works employees, which would be good. So thank you, Madam President. And I know my colleagues will support this proclamation.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Robb, for congratulating and recognizing this department as a self-described policy wonk. Before I got elected, I thought I would be focusing on really the sexy departments in the city, you know, be about economic development and human services. And I have been surprised by how integral the work that I have done to fight poverty, build communities has brought me working so closely with your staff. And so I'll give my quick highlight list. Regional Policy. You know, we are passionate on this council about pedestrian safety and walkability and multimodal transportation in the regional conversation. Sometimes those things are harder to achieve as folks want to build more lanes on roads. And so I rely so closely on the policy team and some of the experts in the public works department to think about how we talk about those issues regionally and really make the whole region work together. And so you guys staff us at a on a well daily basis probably. And that work, my work to create a open space. Caswell, Monteiro and I work together in an area of Globeville. And, you know, we think of it as a park, which is really something very sexy, but there's so much public infrastructure in terms of stormwater and in terms of even getting down to curb and gutter, which I'm sure you're going to help me pay for. But those pieces, having public works at the table to create an open space out of a blighted area and all the way through the other pieces of the city's work. So so I've been surprised and delighted by what I've learned from working with you, by what I've gained, by having you at the tables that you've been willing to participate in. And I thank you for that broad reaching approach, which isn't just how do we build or maintain infrastructure, but how do we achieve goals for people in ways that infrastructure can support them? And that's that's cool. And I appreciate it. And I know it extends to all of the divisions that I represented today with the priorities. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Carnation. Councilman Neville, if you don't mind, I want to riff off of that. I'll give you the last word. I'm not exactly a policy wonk, but I am a city nerd. And Public Works gives me the opportunity to talk about things that bother my friends, sometimes street paving and sidewalks and traffic lights and urban drainage. I can talk a lot about urban drainage and gutters and sewers and and finally, they have taught me how to talk trash. And I could talk trash in a very polite way. And I have enjoyed working with public works so much. It just feeds my inner nerd so well. And this is well-deserved. Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Does that make me a policy punk? I don't mean perhaps.
Speaker 2: Going with the theme.
Speaker 3: This along with the the hepatitis C proclamation is a is a perennial, but one that I'm always happy to see because it's an opportunity to celebrate the department and its employees who don't often get celebrated. Public Works is is the atlas that holds up the world. So, you know, we spend a lot of time being excited about the world, but we don't give proper credit to the atlas that holds it up and public works does that in. A thousand different ways that are rarely recognized. So it's great to have public works week and to be able to recognize public works for all they do. It's like the the bottom of the food pyramid. Nobody, you know, gets excited about, you know, the whatever the hell is on the bottom of the food pyramid, but nobody gets excited about it. But it's, you know, it's the pyramid that holds up the rest of it. And that's what public works does for us, holds up our world. And thank you for doing it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. It looks like Councilman Lopez going to get the last word.
Speaker 3: Oh, great. Thank you. I well, I also wanted to to publicly thank the Department of Public Works. You do so much in our city, and I know we are constantly calling the department and in public works is just the department of many different departments. It is the, you know, the quintessential bare bones minimum of the city. If there is one thing we do, it is the work that we do in public works. And if there's one thing that best defines the role of government in the whole purpose of government, to do the things for the many that we can possibly do for the individual right. Public works and public works achieves that right. If you drive down a street, you may hit some potholes, but chances are in Denver you don't. Why? Because they do such a good job. They do such a good job. They did it in a district that I represent. And for 25 years. Some people may laugh about it, but for 25 years nobody had touched it. And because of the leadership in public works, because of the men and women in public works, you won't find a pothole in Villa Park. You won't find a pothole in some parts of Westwood now. And instead, you find neighborhoods that look built right, that are created right and that are built to last. And you see bike lanes on Morrison Road and Knox Core, right? You see different things that are just happening in our city. And this is all done by the hands of the people who call the city home, who happen to work in their public works. I happened to work on West Alaska Place in the Westwood neighborhood while we were paving. We go out every year and think folks are paying pass out Gatorade and and water. And lo and behold, one of the people who was paving the street actually lived on that street and grew up on that street. That's what makes this department so special, right? This year we may talk trash once in a while, but a manager got an AHA. You run a very good shop with a great manager at his helm. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 4: And thank you, Madam President. I also want to take the opportunity to extend my appreciation. I wish I knew all 1100 employees. But here's what I do know that public works does everything from Keep Denver Beautiful this far as graffiti, graffiti removal all the way to major projects. I'm very mindful of the role that Public Works played in the redevelopment of Denver Union Station and the work that you're doing currently regarding I-70 and the National Western Stock Show. And we couldn't we couldn't do wouldn't be responsive if we didn't have the help of solid waste. Also, permitting and enforcement have worked with a lot of people, their street maintenance. And then of course, Nancy, I have an inbox of a lot of emails that you and I have, so I'm going to have to start deleting some of those. I also want to extend my thank you to host Cornell for all of the work that you do and that and for your steadfast, steadfast leadership. And also to George Delaney, who you're there when Jose is away from the helm. And I really appreciate that. So congratulations again. Let me see if I got these names right. Jason, Chloe, Adrian, Luis, Jeremy, Cindy, Patrick and Ron. So I hope I got everybody's name. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counselor Monteiro. All right. Looks like we're ready for the vote.
Speaker 1: Rob, I. Shepherd, I.
Speaker 4: But I.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Monteiro I love it. Hi, Ortega. Hi. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I am close to voting out the results.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The proclamation is adopted, Councilman Roberts or somebody would like to call up to the podium.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I expected my colleagues to support this, but I hope no one out there was sort of insulted with some of the comments. I would like to call up the interesting, sexy, cool and strong executive director of the Public Works Department, which is an interesting, sexy, cool and strong department.
Speaker 2: Good one. Councilwoman Rob.
Speaker 3: Cook.
Speaker 5: I'm single network secretary, director of Public Works and I want to thank on behalf of Public Works this proclamation. It is truly an honor to be part of this organization and work with these 1100 people that I would say are fully committed not only to the council priority by the mayor's priorities, but also the stakeholders priorities, and be able to mix all these priorities together and come up with public works priority, which is to create a smart city, meaning a sustainable city, a city that provides mobility in a safe way and attractive city resiliency, and also a process to be the most transparent process that we can deliver. Somebody says, I was reading this book the other day. Somebody says that the public space is the the visible face of society. And I do believe that. I think that that's how we judge cities when we go around the world and come back. I like to talk a little bit, spend a little bit of time talking about the ten employees that we're honoring tonight, because I think it's very important to mention exactly what these employees have been working and being part of. Jason Rediker from Capital Management recently designed two very critical storm sewer projects. One of them have been in neighborhood. And the other one is at first and university, which is under construction in your district. Chloe Thompson from Finance Administration. She is one of our first black built from the academy. She has worked very hard to improve and develop new models for for the financial track in streamlining contracts, contracting and putting in place a more efficient procurement process. Adrian Goldman from Fleet Management. Adrian was very close with our fleet technicians downloading software that helps to better diagnose vehicles and speed up the repair process. Lewis Gardner From Right of Way Enforcement in permitting, Lewis is a very diligent vehicle investigator who goes above and beyond to assist not only the public but also the the in the agency. He volunteers to maintain city's vehicle inventory and has taken the lead role a role a role in making sure that the motors workshop is free of hazardous materials and and mark problems. Jeremy Hammer from right of way services. He's our lead on floodplain issues. He's responsible for very complex flood floodplains and drainage issues. He works very closely with urban drainage, FEMA, Corp of Engineers, etc., to ensure that our flat maps are up to date. Cindy Patton, a very dedicated senior planner who has been instrumental in the implementation of Denver's Strategic Transportation Plan, as well as developing new programs, ordinances and policies to balance the supply and demand of parking in our city. Patrick Quintana. From sort of way. Paddy squeal automated barrel truck driver who continues to contribute to agency success. Paddy is a member of Solid Waste Eating a member of the Supervisory Mentor Program. This is a very successful program in which we are training our staff to become supervisors and at back has been instrumental in mentoring some of these future supervisors. Jess Contreras from St Monans Jessie has been with ST Maintenance for ten years. He made it a personal goal to learn all areas of his department and has been very successful in doing so. Jesse takes pride in the fact that he loves to share his knowledge with other co workers, and recently he was promoted to equipment operator, a specialist. Now in April 2014. Runs Smart from Traffic Engineering Services. He's responsible for replacing all the crosswalk in the south east quadrant of the city. I'm sorry, south west quadrant of the city. He has replaced replace over 75% of the criss cross work with permanent marking since 2011. And he's the person responsible for the green stripes that you see on St Patrick's Day and purpose stripes for the rookie opening. And last but not least, this one being from wastewater management. Moon really enjoys working with the wastewater lab. She's always willing to go above and beyond respect, patient and responsibilities to ensure that the work in the lab is done accurately in support the Mayor's 2020 sustainability goals. So I really want to thank the staff and the 1100 employee that provides work for the city every day. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Say. Hey, we're moving right along. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating May 18 through May 24 as "Public Works Week in Denver" and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department's ten employees of the year.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05122014_14-0365
|
Speaker 1: us. Be assured, however, that by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during public hearing. Okay. To begin. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 365 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council all 365 be placed upon final consideration and passed.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and multiple seconded with the public hearing is open. Councilman Brooks, do you want to start off with the staff report?
Speaker 3: Yes, this is a little bit different process. Madam President, we we really don't have a staff report. We'll be going from Article 11 of the naming public buildings or major components of buildings, section 2 to 75. And I am actually going to ask that will Austin, the proposer, come up and read his his reasons for naming?
Speaker 0: Good afternoon. Good evening. Good evening, Madam President.
Speaker 5: And can you pull up your mike? Hey.
Speaker 0: Madam President, Councilman Brooks and members of Council. It is indeed my honor to put forward this proposal for the renaming of 2855 tree mine after Alba M Wedgeworth. It has been it was a very important process for us to to put together an all volunteer and I stress all volunteer team of folks to to collect the signatures and to put forward this proposal. As a result of that, we collected and it was only required for 100 signatures we collected somewhere in the neighborhood of 650 signatures and close to 2020 letters of support. The naming process can be an important tool, I believe, to to ensure the integrity of a neighborhood, to to formalize the DNA of that neighborhood. And we believe by using someone who grew up just blocks away from from the building that is in question is a critical way to do that. L Bram Wedgeworth grew up in a housing project just blocks away from that place. And we believe that the model that she represents for other children in that neighborhood, that you can actually grow up in that project and end up with your name on a building. But that's about the integrity and about the work that she did along along the way with the current transformation of what's happening in 5.2, we think is critical that when history tells the story of five points, that it's sprinkled with names like Alba Wedgeworth and and Blair Caldwell and some of the other names that are already there. And we think Alba Wedgeworth is a perfect person to be added to that list. I want to close by sharing a letter for a 59 year resident of District eight who could not be here, but I promised him I would share his thoughts with you. And it reads as such. Dear Members of Council, I am honored to write this letter requesting City Council members full support to rename the 5.8 Fremont Building , located at 2855 Fremont Place to the Abraham Wedgeworth Municipal Building. I want to tell you why I believe so strongly that Ms.. Wedgeworth has earned this recognition. I have been a resident of Denver council disregarded for more than 59 years, and words cannot express how much we care about Alba. She's a native of Denver and grew up in a housing project blocks away in Curtis Park. She has always been the heart and soul of District eight, the city and county of Denver and the state of Colorado. She is known for her integrity, her loyalty, her commitment, dedication and hard work and support of public policy values. I consider her one of my closest friends, and she's like a daughter to me. I strongly recommend the Fremont Building become the Abraham Wedgeworth Municipal Building. Sincerely, Harold Byrd, District eight resident 2856 Madison Street. Very much, and I am available for any questions you might have.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Austin. We have 22 people signed up for Ms.. Wedgeworth, so. 11, 11. Oh, says 11, nine and two. Well, only 11 and very happy to have them. I'd like to have them come up to the pew, though, the front pew, so that we can get an. I'll call you in order Tammy. Door Veronica barela. Ms. in Cooma and landed Landry Taylor and Mr. Sekou are the first five and we'll get them in the front row here and we'll just call on them as in that order. Okay. Tammy door.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Madam President, and honorable members of City Council.
Speaker 1: My name is Tammy, Georgia.
Speaker 7: And I'm the president and CEO of the Downtown Denver Partnership. The address is 511 16th Street, Denver.
Speaker 1: Colorado.
Speaker 7: On behalf of the 750 downtown Denver Partnership members, 400 downtown.
Speaker 1: Property owners.
Speaker 7: Residents and downtown.
Speaker 1: Employees, we are honored to recognize tonight the downtown Denver Partnership.
Speaker 7: Board Chairwoman Alberta Wedgeworth. Alberta is the definition.
Speaker 1: Of a city.
Speaker 7: Builder. Statistics show that the emotional connection that a community.
Speaker 1: Has with their city translates into economic.
Speaker 7: Growth and prosperity. Albert truly loves the city, and in turn we love her back because her love for this city, and in particular her love for downtown, has shaped the center city that we all live in and work in today. Her contributions to downtown Denver spans several decades. Throughout her different leadership roles.
Speaker 1: She paved the way for the development of the Convention Center Hotel work tires.
Speaker 7: Tirelessly to bring the Democratic National Convention to downtown Denver, transformed the five points in Arapahoe Square areas.
Speaker 1: Championed social issues, including affordable and transitional housing, and likely recognized earlier tonight and celebrated last week.
Speaker 7: She built the epicenter called Denver Union Station. Her impact speaks for itself.
Speaker 1: Through the projects.
Speaker 7: And the people that we see every day in our center city.
Speaker 1: The partnership.
Speaker 7: Cannot thank Alba enough for her contributions to making the city.
Speaker 1: Great. I cannot think of.
Speaker 7: A better way to thank her than recognizing her leadership through the naming of this building. I personally thank her for her friendship and mentorship through my years in Denver, and we kindly ask for your support in naming this building, the album Wedgeworth Building.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Veronica Barela. Good evening, esteemed Council members. My name is Veronica Barela and I reside at 151 South. Stewart AM the President and CEO of New Said Community Development Corporation. I'm here tonight in support of the city building located at 2855, Truman being named the Alberta and Wedgeworth Municipal Building. Harper has been an outstanding leader for the city and county of Denver and has shaped it and has helped shape its fabric. She is deserving of this recognition. Alba has had the privilege of being the only person to serve in all three branches of city government. Mayor's office, auditor's office and City Council. She was a champion in bringing the 2008 Democratic National Convention to Denver. She is the first person of color to serve as chairperson on the Denver Partnership Board INC Board. Alba was named by the Denver Post as one of the most as one of Colorado's most influential women. Her numerous awards are far reaching and exemplify her many talents and contributions to Denver and to Colorado. Alper has had an amazing life and she shares it by reaching out and empowering those lives she has touched over the years. She gives of her time, energy and money to make sure that her community is in the forefront of issues that are critical to the well-being of Denver because she has never forgotten where she came from. I ask that you name this building after her. So the Alba's legacy lives on throughout the city that she honors and that she loves. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Barela. Julie in Cooma. She told you so. Thank you for letting me speak. Accidentally left my purse at home with all my notes in it. So I'm speaking not against Elvira. I think she's a very fine person, and I think there are a lot of other things that could be named for her. Besides Five Points Community Center. Sometimes we must put our emotions behind. But this isn't one time I have been on the board of Five Points Community Center since 1978 2003, when the board that have come into place decided to expand the building into the food stamps building and not allow the mom and pop nonprofits to continue meeting there. The building was built as a community center. Some of that land. If you guys have read about it, was donated by black family that lived in the area so a campus could be built. The campus was built and all the dreams of it were completed except the senior center. Five Points came into prominence in the 1860s, and it was called the Harlem of the West, first predominantly African-American neighborhood in Denver. And it was the only place we could live. Five Points is a historic center and a symbol, and the name holds.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 1: Power and the significance. There is power in and history in its name. Names create branding. Five Points is our brand. One of the goals of the five point plan is empowering and unifying the broader five points community. As a person who has been intricately involved with five points from its beginning, it was built by a black man named Bertram Rutan. The building was temporarily occupied by food stamps, and the intention was it to return as a community center. There isn't another one in the Five Points District with the Nugent ification. Everything that symbolizes five points and the black community has been disappearing quickly. It's like we never existed. I was one of the instructors understanding that motor vehicle was only going to be temporarily there because we would not support them being there. There's a daycare center right next door to five points that actually occupies the same heating system under the ground. The Five Points Community Center has. I don't even like the idea of all these strangers coming in and out with our children right there with five points. Community Center. We have recently lost the library that was in the center, which was very important because the children used to come there after school and we always had people there to help them with their schoolwork because mom and dad sometimes didn't get off until five. And what better place than a community center? So as I say, this is not about Heilbrunn. This is about your love of your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. Points Community Center. And I really hope that you will be flexible enough to see your time is up. Please don't take another symbol of who we are. Please. Thank you. I'm finished now. Thank you. Landry Taylor.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Landry Taylor. I reside at 24 seven Spruce Street in the city and county of Denver. Denver is a very special place when it comes to remarkable women. Molly Brown. Justin of Fort Ferry Taylor. Wilma Well, Frances Jacobs, just to name a few. It gives me pride and honor to include the name of Abraham Wedgeworth to that esteemed list of Denver's remarkable women. As many others will point out, the achievements of the Honorable L. M Wedgeworth, let's not forget these additional credits to the list. The first African-American woman elected to serve Council District eight, the first African-American woman to serve as president and chair of the Democratic National Convention Committee. House Committee. The first African-American woman to serve as chair of the Downtown Denver Partnership. And recently, the honorable Elvira Wedgeworth was inducted into the blacks in Colorado Hall of Fame by the Denver Public Library. However, what many of us remember most about our borough is her keen vision and love for this city. A love that brings people together from all corners of the Denver metro area. Her engaging smile and stern voice when she's made up her mind to get business done. This is just not my honor to place her name in support of the naming of this building. It's Denver's honor to recognize and to brand this name for our city, for its citizens, and for this council. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Sekou. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 8: My name is Chairman Sake, who I proudly represent and is honored to be a trusted and humble servant to the poor, working, poor and homeless people in the city. Organization is the Black Star Action Movement. Oh, man. I stand opposed to this building being named after Sister Wedgeworth and. I know the family. As a matter of fact, her father came down the police station, got three members of our basketball team who were championship one day that we were accused of robbing a bank downtown. And it was a misidentification. Mr. Berger came and got us on two and. He also was the photographer for my first wedding and his daughters and sons. We played on the same basketball team down men at different stages because Danny was on his way out. Tim was going to leave a man to go into University College Boulder to play basketball. And I was there with Clifford and Walton. So this really ain't about her. And it is. And the paradox in this thing is that Oprah has had a outstanding life of public service, did a lot for the city. And sometimes in the history of our people, I'm talking about black people. We give our best to this nation, the city and the world, and our community gets left behind. See, when Elbert was doing all these wonderful things, our community was being gentrified. And now a community that was 90% black is down to 20%. And it started when Hiawatha died. We're talking Hiawatha Davis here. All right. And so we suffer. From a brain drain and energy drain. When we give that to.
Speaker 2: Others and there's nothing for us. No.
Speaker 8: It's what we lose out. And the individual person goes high and goes to higher places and does great things for others. What about us? What about us? Say we. And in the process, that building that was called the Park Point's community center. You want to take that away from us? Are you kidding me? You talked about the gentrification and the notices that were going out in your neighborhood park. But then we watched the activity that happens down here when it comes to enforcing the law and making sure that people are protected in their neighborhoods. And there is a voice of silence. Nothing is done. So therefore, those signs are on the down low done by this body. There was absence in the silence in refusing to enforce the law, and that's how we got to where we at now. So it wasn't just you. It was the ones who started way back in 1982.
Speaker 2: This ain't nothing new.
Speaker 8: And the same.
Speaker 5: Basis for increases.
Speaker 8: Name change. Basis change. But the policy and the procedure remains the same because there's institutionalized racism. And you don't know how to stop it. You don't know how to fight it. And so we have a committee here of 13 people that reminds me of old sitcom called The Little Rascals. Up here, Mary. Mischief makers acting as if the adults trying to figure it out. And in the process, we have all of these unintended but intentional consequences. Because I've been down here for almost four years. I watch you. Compromise. Principle for prudence. Through what we do here. What do we do here? Say, what do we do? Well, I'll tell you what we need to do. Elbow wrist work is bigger than that building.
Speaker 2: Who needs to be across the street? All the main. All the way of building big. That's how big he is. That's a.
Speaker 8: Contribution. And it's an insult to us, the family, and the sacrifice that our community has made.
Speaker 2: To make it so minimal. And you minimize.
Speaker 8: Your contribution by putting it on that small building. Are you crazy? Have you lost your mind? Don't you have any appreciation for the sacrifice and suffering of our people? Oh, no. You should be out there with that competitive world in bright lights. It was our idea as he had to, quote unquote, have more of that.
Speaker 1: Please address the council.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's what he is.
Speaker 1: Because he is here. Your time is up, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. Now, please sit down. Take your seat.
Speaker 8: I am, though. I do.
Speaker 1: Come by. Thank you very much. Yeah, I'd like to call Tracy Winchester up to the stand.
Speaker 5: Madam Chair. Thank you. My name is Tracy Winchester. I am the executive director of the Five Points Business District. We are located at 2444 Washington Street, Denver, Colorado. I am a 29 year resident of the city of Denver and I have known ALPA Wedgeworth just that long. The Five Points Business District is a designated nonprofit and registered neighborhood organization. We represent the interests of property owners, businesses and community.
Speaker 1: Stakeholders located.
Speaker 5: In this historic cultural district. We are privileged to put our support behind naming the municipal building at 2855 Fremont Place, the Elvira M Wedgeworth Municipal Building, the Honorable Alberta. And Wedgeworth is an icon of strength, perseverance and democracy in the city of Denver. More specifically, she has been a champion of District eight and the historic five points Curtis Park neighborhood where she was raised. It is most appropriate that a public servant of her statute be acknowledged for her 30 plus years of service to the greater Denver community. Given that this building is located in the heart of five points, we think this acknowledgment of her, her outstanding number of accomplishments in all three areas of city government would be an inspiration to our young people for generations to come. Former Councilwoman Wedgeworth has demonstrated throughout her career a commitment to improve the quality of life for all of Denver. She initiated numerous infrastructure projects and oversaw the renewal of District eight through redevelopment projects such as East Village, Dallas Shopping Center, Mercy Hospital Redevelopment 1616 Glenarm Skyline Park and the Blaire Caldwell African-American Research Library, to name a few . Councilwoman Wedgeworth was also president, as you all have heard numerous times of the 2008 Denver Democratic Convention host committee. Her leadership was crucial to Denver being chosen to host the convention. The direct economic impact to the city and county of Denver was $153.9 million. Her body of work has been influential in the cultural, political and economic livelihood of the greater Denver community. Thank you for letting me come and speak tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Winchester. I'm going to call Dixie Tremble. Dixie Tremble, Don Burkhart, Jerry Glick and Lisa Roy to the front pew to search the lineup for our next speaker, the item.
Speaker 5: To the honorable members of Denver City Council. My name is Dixie Trimble.
Speaker 1: I am the widow of the late King Trimble.
Speaker 5: Who represented District eight. Tonight, I am here to speak on behalf of another former district council representative, and that person is Elvira Wedgeworth. I think it would be most appropriate to.
Speaker 1: Name the building at 2855 Tremont Place.
Speaker 5: The Abraham Wedgeworth Municipal Office Building. Former District eight councilwoman Eva Wedgewood did so much for the people of her district. I believe that it would be a great tribute.
Speaker 1: To her for letting her know.
Speaker 5: How much we appreciated all she did for Denver District eight. In 1999, she was elected to Denver City Council. L would not only served her constituents in District eight, but she also served people citywide and.
Speaker 1: Nationwide.
Speaker 5: When she was needed. Councilwoman Wedgeworth grew up in Curtis Park, a surrounding neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Where 2588 Tremont Street, Tremont Place is currently located.
Speaker 5: And 2122 Albo was elected Denver City Council President Pro-Tem. Then in 2003, her fellow council members elected her city council president for 2003 and 2000 for reelection to those two positions. Show how much she was respected by her colleagues on city council. While Council President, she supervised the.
Speaker 1: Multimillion dollar city council.
Speaker 5: Budget while on Denver City.
Speaker 1: When? Wow. Denver City.
Speaker 5: Council. Wedgewood created many improvements to Denver parks streetscape projects. Funding for small businesses, housing and historic preservation. Lots of those projects provided jobs for our citizens and not only for this great constituent, but for people throughout the city and county of Denver. Eva was president of the 28 Denver Democratic Convention. Host host committee.
Speaker 1: And her leadership was extremely important for Denver.
Speaker 5: Being chosen to host the National Democratic Convention by Denver hosting the Democratic Convention. This part, millions of millions of dollars to our great city. In 1974, she received her college degree.
Speaker 1: From Redlands College.
Speaker 5: Located in Redlands, California.
Speaker 1: Fortunately for the people of Denver.
Speaker 5: Al was settled in Denver after finishing college and began her professional career. Please vote to name. 2855 Fremont Place The Alba M Wedgeworth Municipal Municipal Office Building.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Perfect timing. Thank you, Miss Trimble. Jerry Glick. Oh, no, I'm sorry, Don Lockhart. I'm sorry, Jerry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Don Burkhart.
Speaker 5: I reside in.
Speaker 1: Aurora, Colorado, but I do all my shopping in Denver.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: I've known Alber.
Speaker 5: Wedgeworth for over 20 years, and.
Speaker 1: During those 20 years, I've had the opportunity and the privilege.
Speaker 0: To observe her work as a public.
Speaker 1: Servant, as clerk and recorder for the city and county of Denver, serving in Mayor.
Speaker 5: Wellington Webber's administration.
Speaker 1: As a member of the Denver Election Commission and on the Board of County Commissioners. Then I watched as she served from 1996 to 1999 as the Director of Community Relations and philanthropic affairs at Denver Health. In 1999, she was elected.
Speaker 5: To a seat on the Denver City Council representing District eight. She served as Council President Pro tem from 2001.
Speaker 1: To 2002 and as Denver City Council President.
Speaker 5: From 2003 to 2005.
Speaker 1: In 2007, she accepted the position of Chief Governmental and Community Relations Officer for Denver Health and who could.
Speaker 0: Forget.
Speaker 1: What she did as President and chair of the board for the Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee.
Speaker 5: Which was responsible.
Speaker 1: For bringing the Democratic National Convention to Denver in August of 2008.
Speaker 0: The Honorable Eleanor.
Speaker 1: Wedgeworth has demonstrated her commitment and tenacity in bettering our city and.
Speaker 0: District.
Speaker 1: Eight in particular over the past two.
Speaker 5: And a half decades. I watched as she made.
Speaker 1: Those valuable contributions toward the financing and completion of the Blaire Caldwell Research Library. I was.
Speaker 5: Encouraged as she pushed.
Speaker 1: The Web Municipal Office Building building to an exciting grand opening. She was instrumental in nudging the Colorado Convention Center forward and was a real force in making sure.
Speaker 0: The I's.
Speaker 1: Were dotted and the T's crossed in refinancing and operating the Hyatt Regency Hotel at the Colorado Convention Center. In fact, she's done so much for our city's tourism, and she's been referred to from time to time as Miss Tourism. I've watched as they'll.
Speaker 5: Recharge forward, igniting the imaginations.
Speaker 1: Of those around her and scaring the pants off of others who may not want to work as hard as they needed to work to get the job done. You all know what I'm talking about. I've watched Amazed as project after project comes out of the ground on time and within budget, knowing that Labor is in the mix , making things happen. She's worked on a number of downtown building projects on our city and she's worked tirelessly as the chair of the Downtown Denver Partnership over the past year. But I think my proudest moment in Elba's life was watching the grand opening of Denver Union Station and reflecting on the thousands of hours this woman contributed to a project that was so complex, complicated and costly, it may well have died on the vine over a consensus building style and can do attitude. Served the city well as president of the Denver.
Speaker 5: Union Station Project.
Speaker 1: Authority. Elba has spent the last.
Speaker 5: Six years of her.
Speaker 1: Life at your time volunteering her services. We really do owe this woman. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Burkhart. Jerry Glick.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Chairman. I'm Jerry Glick. I reside in Denver, Colorado. I won't repeat what everyone else has said, and I could spend more than my time listing Oprah's accomplishments. I will tell you that we have worked closely together on Union Station for the last seems like my natural lifetime, but really as does the last four years . Elbrus dedicated thousands of hours. To that particular project.
Speaker 0: To make sure that we got from where we were, which was really nowhere to what you heard tonight. I can't think really of a more fitting person to have a building named after her than Oprah. And I encourage you to do so tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Clark. Lisa Roy. Thank you, Madam Chairperson and honorable members of the Council over Wedgeworth as a friend to me, and I first knew of her when she was working at Denver Health. I remember a person working there who said, Alva Wedgeworth is this incredible woman. She just gets things done. And as I got to know her over the decades after that comment was made, it's very true. I have never met anyone who was so determined and has given and sacrificed so much of their even personal life to get things done. I'm a mother of three grown children and a grandson, and I you know, I just think about what it takes to sacrifice, you know, family time, time with friends, traveling, all the things that are important to me for one project, needless, all the projects that were mentioned when I think of Ober, I think of a public service for her public servant for life. She didn't just do it one time. It's just a part of her personality. She's like the wind. You just see her effect when she puts her mind to do something. When the Denver Democratic National Convention was here, for instance, I the energy and the buzz in the city was so incredible. I'd never really seen anything like that. I've lived in New York, I've lived in D.C., but I've never seen that kind of buzz before where everyone was just so excited. She was critical in many ways that people don't know when some of the things that haven't been mentioned, like the Denver Preschool Program. I remember having dinner with Obama and talking to her about the initiative and I said, You know, Elvira, I know city council is considering, you know, whether or not to support it. And when she listened to the reasons of why preschool was important. Obama was a champion with some of the board members who had not quite made up their minds about that and turning that around. So again, I could go on and on and on and I won't because I only have 6 minutes anyway, but only 3 minutes just.
Speaker 6: Talking pass.
Speaker 1: Anyway. I adore Obama. I have been a District eight voter and supporter for many, many years, at least for the last 21, and think that it's incredible that this we have this opportunity to name the building after a thank you so very much. Thank you, Mr. Wright. That ends our speakers. Are there questions from council? Yeah, I don't see any questions from council. So I am going to close the public hearing and ask for comments and perhaps I'll ask Mr. Brooks first.
Speaker 3: I think Councilman Lopez had a question before you.
Speaker 1: You had a question before I hit that gavel.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Madam President, I was going to ask, who.
Speaker 4: Is the Silver Lake?
Speaker 1: Who is this.
Speaker 4: Woman?
Speaker 1: Stand up a little bit later.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. It's it's with great privilege and an honor that I bring this piece of legislation ordinance forward for my predecessor's predecessor, the great Eleanor Wedgeworth. And they always say, you know what kind of leader you are when you see the people who are around you. And if the eight speakers just clued in, other folks who spoke about Elvira is any indication of the type of woman she is. Wow. Wow. She has influenced individuals all over the city of Denver from all faiths, backgrounds, sexual orientations, and inspires them to live beyond themselves. And so this is a privilege and honor. So so my first encounter with Elbert Wedgeworth was when I was working for a guy named John Hickenlooper who was running for governor. And they brought me in and I had the first phone call I had to make was to Elvira Wedgeworth, the Elvira Wedgeworth. And, you know, I try to pride myself on being confident, you know, in delivery and everything like that. But, boy, that was the most nerve wracking phone call that I that I've made in a long time. And I kept practicing over this is Albert Brooks.
Speaker 4: Who.
Speaker 3: It was just it was a very nerve wracking experience. And just because her her reputation precedes her, just a very strong woman. And then I happened to to run for for city council in 2011. And I called her again. And that conversation was even more nerve wracking because I knew what her answer was going to be. And I said, Elvira, I would love your support. And she said, no. And and the reason I share that is because I think, you know, a lot of who Elvira is, is she's honest and she's authentic and but she doesn't you know, I felt like she was mad at me and she didn't stay there. And after I've been in council, she's been one of my best advisers and someone that I know I can go to, whether it's the middle of the night or whatever. And she has been incredible. A lot of people mentioned her accolades and we could be here all day talking about the things that she's done. But just think about what it's like for a council person coming after. I mean, what is there left to do right? She has this book of things that she's accomplished within the District eight. And it is it is fascinating. I hope you all get a chance to see that. The thing that I'm most impressed with and the thing that I'm excited that my little girls and every little girl of color on the east side of Denver will get a chance to hear. And notice is that Elvira came from the Curtis Park projects, which is literally three or four blocks from this building, and her name will be on a municipal building within five points. Among the other great pillars of five points. And, you know, in this city, we we preserve a lot of things and and we preserve things, too, for conservation and protection because we we value these issues. Right. And there's been talk today around gentrification and things like that. And, you know, as I'm in this district, the thing that I think about all the time is how do you preserve culture? Okay, how do you really preserve the foundation of a culture in a neighborhood when there's so much change going on and this is how you do it. This is how you do it. You remember, as my friend Paul Lopez would say, you give you give them flowers. When they're alive, not when they're dead. And I think it's such an honor that we get that Albury gets a chance to hear this from all these incredible folks today and just receive this and just sit for all the public service that she's been doing and say, okay, I did a good job and I hope you can do that, but this is so much bigger than you as well. This is about the preservation of a culture in northeast Denver, and this is about inspiring little girls in northeast Denver. So thank you so much, Oprah. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this. We better have a 13 oh vote. And you know. I want to say want one more quick thing, I think and I was talking to our Mayor Hancock about this and these 13 members know this well. Public life is hard. You are the most scrutinized, misinterpreted, misunderstood individual in the city. And I think just for a moment in history, we got a chance to see Oprah in some context be misunderstood, understood. But to be able the strength that she embodies is so inspiring and it inspires young folks a lot to say. Like us, but like me. Sorry, sorry, madam president. Sorry, sorry.
Speaker 1: No, man, he can set everything.
Speaker 4: Oh, come bring up the sweater.
Speaker 3: It's just. It's inspiring. And so. Thank you, Elvira. And congratulations.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, you whippersnapper, are you. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I wish the people in the pews could see how this is lined up, as everyone is wanting to say something about Elvira and what she has done. So I will be brief to allow my colleagues to comment. And it is it is amazing her accomplishments speak for himself. But I think it's really telling of a person when you see how they treat strangers. And I was a stranger to Denver. I'm not from here. I moved here after my time in the military and I was trying to find ways to serve. And I just had this idea of running for city council. And when you're running for office, one of the things that you do is you try to meet with as many people as possible and previous elected officials examples. And I can say that one of the easiest meetings I could make was with Amber Wedgeworth. She was very open to sit down and talk with me to give candid advice. And I thought that was very telling, because when you treat people who literally can add no value to who you are as a person says a lot about you. And that was a personal story that I always remember and can never forget. I am sincerely in awe of Alba and the things that she had done. I find it very fitting that we are doing this conversation. The day after yesterday we spent the day honoring strong women and that has spilled over today as we continue to honor another strong woman. So I can just say well-deserved. Certainly, her legacy is beyond the building. It lives in all of us. And I certainly hope that it lives in me as I continue to serve.
Speaker 4: And make a difference and try to.
Speaker 0: Fill some footsteps of those who have come before us. So I certainly urge my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Herndon, Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. The first.
Speaker 5: Vote that I cast on city.
Speaker 7: Council was a really.
Speaker 5: Good one.
Speaker 7: It was for Alba Wedgeworth, this council president.
Speaker 5: And she was an excellent president naming this building after her since several messages. First, it says the people of the.
Speaker 7: Area are important and Alba.
Speaker 5: Is indeed one of the people follow through is important.
Speaker 7: One of the reasons why.
Speaker 5: Alba is so effective is that she has tremendous follow through. Many of you have mentioned the DNC as an example. As a new council person, I ask a very complicated question at the beginning of the day and have an answer before the evening. I could not believe it. She is a.
Speaker 7: Force. Political diversity is important to her.
Speaker 5: We may have different political views, but Alba always made it clear my opinions were important to the city policy debate. What a difference that philosophy would make in this world. It's made her, my friend and I really am pleased that this building is going to be named after you. If my colleagues agree, I think it's a perfect name.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. And yes, councilwoman, thoughts? You and I voted that same way that evening. And as Alba became president or after she became president, I heard then mayor, our new mayor at the time and now Governor Hickenlooper say numerous times. In fact, I think I just heard him say it not too long ago. You know, having Alba as president taught me everything I know about politics. Yeah, she really represented city council to the administration and in many of the ways that Councilwoman Fox was talking about in valuing where we all came from. But if she taught Governor Hickenlooper about politics, she taught me how to be cool, except I'm not sure I've got it all mastered. Yeah. You know, I get these emails from her. Well, first of all, we were sisters on Colfax, but then I get these emails from her that say Chaka Khan, that an editor or my assistant would say, l was on the phone, I'd pick up the phone and she'd say, Chaka. Well, finally, one night, thanks to the Internet, I figured out who Chaka Khan was, and I listened to a song called I'm Every Woman. And I said, Oh, okay. Well, here's the irony. Clearly, she's every woman, because not one woman could do all the things that we heard about tonight. And I have a feeling I'd love to see your clothes closet someday, because I have a feeling you could dress many, many women from that resource. But actually, I do support the naming of this building after Eleanor Hall, for all the good reasons you've heard. But for me, it's always going to be the wedge worth every woman building. So nice. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, ma'am. First of all, I want to say that.
Speaker 1: Elba was an incredible influence on all the women to imagine having a city council of 13 with ten people. Ten of those members never having done this before. And then you are.
Speaker 5: Elected to lead them. Talk about a challenge.
Speaker 1: And what an incredible challenge. It was just incredible. And I just I think I take this opportunity to thank you, because as many of us have said, you are our mentor. You created this incredible council that worked terrifically together and made and really made great contributions during your term with us to Denver. So thank you.
Speaker 5: And I'm proud to vote for this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. To answer Councilman Lopez's question, who is this woman? First of all, she's my friend and former colleague. Alber and I served together on the council. And I'm not going to reiterate all the great things that you have heard already, but I want to just clarify something. Naming a building after Alber Wedgeworth in the Five Points neighborhood does not change the name.
Speaker 1: Or the fabric.
Speaker 5: Of the neighborhood itself. It honor someone who has given many, many contributions to the city as a whole, but especially to northeast Denver. And our work continues to give back to this city in many ways. You heard about her role with the Denver Partnership. Her continued role at Denver Health. And Denver Health is position to be in the lead, as we have have now stepped into health care reform. A new clinic will be built in southwest Denver. You know, they have done an incredible job making sure that underserved people in this city continue to be taken care of. And I know Alba has played an instrumental role in all of that. And I just want to say thank you for your friendship and thank you for your service to the city. And I am honored to be supporting this name change tonight. And I just want to say congratulations. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I'll certainly be supporting this tonight, although I will say I'm nervous about voting in favor of this and not just because Councilman Brooks threatened us earlier this evening, but I'm kind of nervous on three counts. Number one, I kind of feel unworthy the authority to name a building after Elba Wedgeworth. I work hard. I try to represent my community. I sincerely do my best for the city that I love. But in comparison to Elba Wedgeworth, my efforts and record are puny and insubstantial. And yet here I am on the dais and she's down there in the hard seats. And so I'm supposed to have the authority to say, Yes, we will name this building after you. I feel unworthy to be naming something after Elba Wedgeworth. Second reason I'm nervous is because is this the right building? I mean, Elba Wedgeworth. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I got to get something out of you. But Elvira's impact on this city is so legion, so multifaceted that, you know, there's like 15 different things that could be named after Elvira. Well, Wedgeworth in this town and I know all of them would be justified if this is the building that you all want to name after Albert Wedgeworth. Well, let's name it after Albert Wedgeworth, but I think there's a lot of other buildings, too, so I'll go along with that. The third reason I'm slightly nervous about this is because usually we name stuff after dead people. Mm hmm. And Elvira is not dead. Elvira is very much alive and kicking and kicking hard. And I would hate to think that we were sort of putting a capstone on the the efforts and achievements of Elvira Wedgeworth by naming a building after her job. Well done. You can go home now. We're going to name this building after you. I don't think that's the case. And I think it's actually the mark of a true leader that someone who now holds no elected position whatsoever. I think we have every expectation that Elvira Wedgeworth will continue to lead us and continue to make amazing things happen for this city just because she's Elvira Edgeworth. So with all those reservations stated, I'll be supporting naming this building after Abraham and Wedgeworth.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I do know who Elbert Wedgeworth is, and I like teasing her every time I see her. I mean, because she's a big teaser. One would say she's a tease, but I'm not going to say that. Oprah's amazing. I love Albert White's world. You know, when I have a lot of questions in politics, when I have questions and how to serve the district, which is a very hard district to serve right in council district, they has the same challenges in a lot of ways or sister districts, right? In a lot of ways. We have those challenges and I always look forward to being able to ask over these kind of questions. And she's always there, always there to support. A person can say that a politician and leader are on the same thing and they're not for absolutely not. A leader is somebody who gets behind and pushes, pushes others, doesn't step out in the limelight and say, I'm a leader, but gets behind and pushes when the time comes and when it's necessary. And somebody who stands as Junior said and, you know, the ultimate measure of a man and I'll say a woman as well as where they stand, what is the stand in times of controversy, not comfort time. And and I think Elvira has always stood up when the time came, right. She's always been there to not just have my back. Right, but for our community. And I do think that it's important that we honor people when they're alive. We do. We should we shouldn't wait until somebody is gone for seven years, as one of our rules are, to name and to honor somebody. Right. And somebody who has a huge impact in this city. And Alvarez made that impact. You have made that impact. Right. And yes, she teases me once in a while and I get to tease her. But that's the beauty of it. I can say that as a public servant and when I'm all older and I can tell my people in my community and other folks in Denver, I remember when Albert Wedgeworth, when I drove my daughter, passed the building and I could say, Hey, Albert Wedgeworth was your pappy's friend. Right. And when our Bruce family and friends and community members walk by this building, they can say, This is your A.L., bro. This is my friend Alberta. Right. That's the legacy. That's why this is important. Right. And the fact that it's not a name from somewhere else. We have names that honor people who probably never set foot in Colorado. And that's fine. I absolutely love the fact that some of our names are from our people who were born in Colorado and probably never lived in Colorado. But when we have some folks who are honored, who are from our state, from our city blocks away. That's something to be honored. That's that's that's amazing. And that tells the story of our city. And that's the history of our city. Ann Arbor, I'm glad your name is going to be in the history of our city. So I love you very much, sister. Thank you very much for all of your work. And I know this isn't the last building that's going to bear your name out and as far as we can help it. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 5: Thank. Thank you, Madam President. I'm very honored to be able to cast my vote this evening to have this building named after you. But being a Latina, that's very superstitious. Take care of yourself and let's have you around for a long time. Exactly. But I'll well, I'll come back with another funny story in a minute. But, you know, I just want to tell you that the other day when you did a presentation for me at a luncheon, that that you really lifted me up in front of my daughter. And I really appreciated that. And I wanted to thank you personally now for doing that. She will never remember. I mean, she will always remember musselburgh and and the beautiful things that she said at the luncheon to thank you for that memory with my daughter. Now, as when you were council president and we all were able to all of us at the time were rookies were able to vote to have you come in as president. I didn't know what to expect, not so much as your presidency, but I just didn't know what to expect as an incoming fresh man council person. And on a serious note, you were and are my role model because in your own subtle way, you're able to teach me the enormity of the votes and the seriousness of this.
Speaker 1: Job.
Speaker 5: That we have and how we do it. 24 seven And the things that we do are it's very, very serious work. But at the time, you know, we would come to council in and there would be a surprise jazz band playing in the corner, you know, to lift this up or there would, you know, you would always find little personal gifts to put on our desks when you travel. It didn't work. It was a bumper sticker from wherever. But you would always remember us and you were always so kind and personal in that way. And it takes time to think about the personalities of different people and to lift us all up. And I was to something in my council district, and there you were as council president, just sitting there to be supportive. And that was so kind and that was so generous. And I will never forget that. Oh, this is another this is a funny story. Remember the time that you told me that somebody did a survey about city council and where we were on our approval rating in the city and we were number two people actually liked city council at that point under under the leadership. It was so great. And then I have one more funny story that I got to tell. So President Wedgeworth is sitting right here and I'm always sat right here, right.
Speaker 1: Here, right here.
Speaker 5: And so when I forget what the District nine controversy of the day was, but it was serious and it was very, very heated. So she leans over and she says, Girl, are you going to weigh in on this? I think it's time.
Speaker 1: So I will I will.
Speaker 5: Never forget that. But for all the people that that know Elvira and for all the people that will come to know Elvira in our lifetime that we spend together, you have lifted everybody up so much and you are very, very strong. And I'm happy to be counted tonight as one of your yes votes. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: Is it good to see you? Move over. I was wondering, there goes based on what councilman never said about having to be dead before building a name for you. So if you could just wave one more time that he's all right, Chris know she's still with us. I feel better. I feel better already. However, look around this room that, you know, you had so many friends and they are all wearing your favorite color. These are all Redlands University alumni. To hear it tonight to support you. That's not Nebraska Red. That's Redlands University, Red. You know, there's a really a special atmosphere in this chamber this evening. And I think it's about as close as we can get to order up to what occurred in Vatican City last month. Pretty close. You're being praised a great deal and you're worth every moment of this praise. You remember how we met? Mayor Webb called me and I had done a campaign piece for him. So it was in fact, I was in the business. And he said, I got this woman in who wants to run for city council and I want you to meet her and I want you to do a letter for me if you like her and I met you, and indeed I did like you. And I found a phrase from that letter that I wrote for the mayor endorsing you for your seat. And in that campy campaign piece, I said that Alber Wedgeworth would adhere to the principles and values we all share fairness, integrity, work hard, work, learning and family. You indeed have adhered to those principles and those values, and that's why I'm honored to support you tonight. Albert, my good friend. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: And thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you. Elvia Bloodsworth brings Charlie Brown and Robin Kinney together again. I was only going to chime in if there was something I felt like that wasn't mentioned. So two really quick things, which is, one, I think that you are fearless. That is something that I learned from you and the Union Station Project. And I knew this was coming. So I didn't talk about you earlier. But those hairy moments I described in the money wasn't flowing and things weren't coming together. And you gave me a glimpse of, you know, how you grew up in East Denver. It sounds a little bit like my growing up in Milwaukee, a little bit tough. And you came out the other end, fearless, and you've put that practice to work and it's a part of all these things you've achieved. And so I just didn't think the night would be complete without that. And then secondly, to thank you, because in spite of your fearlessness, you also have been willing to take others seriously who come from different backgrounds. And, you know, when I was new to that board and I came from a background of being a housing and a worker advocate, not everyone, I think, thought that I deserved to be there. And you as chair of that board made sure that I had an equal voice and was able to be taken seriously. And so that fearlessness that you brought wasn't exclusive to keeping folks who may have been from different backgrounds like me out. And so it created space for others. And that was special because you don't always get those together. So thank you and keep up that fearlessness. Thank you, Councilwoman. Can you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. I'll try to be brief. I know it's been a long night. There's a really great children's book that I've always loved, and it's called The Giving Tree. Maybe many of you are familiar with that. And it's the story of this little boy that has a tree that grows in his backyard. Nancy grows up and grows through many phases in his life. He's always going to this tree and asking this tree for something, and the tree always provides it gladly, even to the point, you know, where at the end the tree is running low on resources but still always digs deep, you know, in in its soul and its pocket to give. And that reminds me of Elvira. When you ask her for something, she just can't say no. So when you ask for advice and guidance and mentorship, she's always there. And so I think of Elvira kind of as like an Uber mom. You have many, many, many children across this whole city of all shapes, sizes, ages, colors, creeds. So I hope that some of that energy is coming back to you tonight as you hear these great comments. So I thank you for your mentorship. And you have been a wonderful role model for women and girls all across Italy. And as an example, you and I spoke to young, young girls learning about leadership and self-empowerment just at a recent gathering in our city just a couple of weeks ago. And what a pleasure that was to be there with you. So I thank you for your willingness to. Always, you know, be accessible and available to people and for never saying no when someone asks you for something. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 7: I'll just add my $0.02.
Speaker 1: We are all lucky to know you, but most, most especially, we are all lucky to live in your time. Thank you, Elvira. Madam Secretary, I think it's roll call time. Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. I Herndon. I can eat. Lemon Hi. Lopez Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Monteiro, I. NEVITT Hi. Ortega Hi, Rob Shepherd. Madam President, I. And Councilman Lopez. You did it on purpose. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced those results. 12 3913 Eyes the code. Speech. Very sweet of you. Okay.
Speaker 7: Now, would you like to come up and say a few words? Yeah.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Madam President, the members of Council, I wish to sincerely thank all.
Speaker 5: Of you for this incredible recognition.
Speaker 0: Also, I wish.
Speaker 1: To thank personally and Councilman Brookes, because when he first sent me the.
Speaker 0: Information about the name of this building, I thought he was kidding. And then I.
Speaker 1: Realized how serious he was.
Speaker 0: And he was to proceed with the.
Speaker 5: Naming. I was so honored and humbled by it. So I'm very happy to share this also.
Speaker 0: With the residents of.
Speaker 5: University Park.
Speaker 0: You know, even though you're here for another reason. But thank you very much, Albas It means a lot to my.
Speaker 1: Family and I.
Speaker 0: As a matter of.
Speaker 1: Fact, my family is here tonight.
Speaker 0: My father, Walter, which was senior, my sister Deborah Kelly, and.
Speaker 1: Her husband James Kelly.
Speaker 0: And one of my brothers, Danny Wedgeworth.
Speaker 1: And along with my other brothers.
Speaker 5: Everything I.
Speaker 1: Am ever hope.
Speaker 0: To be, I owe to them.
Speaker 5: To my parents and my friends here tonight. Well, Austin, Tracy Winchester, all the folks that signed.
Speaker 0: Up for the.
Speaker 1: Petitions.
Speaker 5: And testified in favor of the ordinance. My coworkers. Thank you very much. You basically shaped my journey.
Speaker 1: Also, as many people.
Speaker 5: Said tonight, I grew up as a kid in Curtis Park.
Speaker 0: And after many years I can really attest what I am right today as just a public servant. Because public service has been the most.
Speaker 5: Rewarding experience I've ever had in my life. And I feel very, very strongly about this and will continue to dedicate myself to create a.
Speaker 0: Better quality.
Speaker 5: Of life and serve the people of Denver and the state of Colorado. But I also want to thank my mother, Castelo, who passed away.
Speaker 0: About two.
Speaker 5: Years ago. I'm a hot mess.
Speaker 0: Paul okay. Like you predicted, I'm a hot mess.
Speaker 1: But but my mom always encouraged me to do my best and to keep my word.
Speaker 5: Be a responsible person and demonstrate your thoughtfulness and kindness. But I also have to take an increase in what you do and how you represent yourself. My mom believed in me that I could accomplish anything I set my mind to do. I did not give up on my goals and to think big that that circumstances define me, but to always define myself, to sincerely.
Speaker 0: Impact people's lives.
Speaker 5: And to make them better.
Speaker 0: I dedicate this naming to my mother because.
Speaker 5: Of the work.
Speaker 1: Ethic.
Speaker 5: I have she helped create. One of my favorite things is my life is not mine alone. Therefore my heart is willing to share. My hands are open to give it, my.
Speaker 0: Spirit willing to share.
Speaker 5: So I thank all of the members of city council. Again, they say you can take the neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Out.
Speaker 5: You can take.
Speaker 0: The girl of the neighborhood, bring out the neighbor and have the girl. And I still live in the neighborhood.
Speaker 5: So it's really sustained me how I grew up. And I hope I can send that message to the next generation of public.
Speaker 0: Servants to challenge yourself to do the impossible, because the reward is in your work.
Speaker 1: And when you knock.
Speaker 5: On the door.
Speaker 0: You can and will open it. Or when you wander path it will appear to you.
Speaker 1: But also for.
Speaker 0: Others to follow.
Speaker 5: So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: That was lovely. Difficult to go back to our other business, but we will go forward. Councilman Lopez, will you please put council bill to 67 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A proposal to name the property located at 2855 Tremont Place the Elbra M. Wedgeworth Municipal Building.
a) Presentation
b) 15 minutes of public comment
c) Discussion/Action (HEALTH, SAFETY, EDUCATION & SERVICES) A proposal to name the property located at 2855 Tremont Place the Elbra M. Wedgeworth Municipal Building. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-22-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05122014_14-0267
|
Speaker 1: That was lovely. Difficult to go back to our other business, but we will go forward. Councilman Lopez, will you please put council bill to 67 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill to 67 series of 2014 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Council bills to 67 to 45. Approve Zoning Map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. With that, we will open the public hearing and ask for the staff report. Miss Lucero.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Tourism Sarah with Community Planning and Development Council Bill 267 is a proposal to rezone a property located at 4300 East Warren Avenue and 4275 East Iliff Avenue from 5205, which is a Chapter 59 PD to General Urban Context Multi-unit with a three storey height limit. The property is located in Southeast Denver in Council District six in the University Hills statistical neighborhood. The northern portion of the neighborhood, it is east of Colorado Boulevard, west of Interstate 25, south of Evans and the Colorado Station Transit Store, northeast of Denver Academy and adjacent to Denver Christian School and northeast of the University Plaza Shopping Center . The request is for a piece of property about two acres or 100,000 square feet. There is an existing office on the property and an apartment structure. There are two parcels to this property, a northern one and a southern one. The northern one is where the office is, and the southern one is where the apartment structures are. The purpose of this request is that the ownership of the Northern Parcel has changed and the use of that property is proposed to change from office to daycare center. The use of the southern property won't change, but we do need to rezone the property. Although the daycare use isn't allowed. Use in the feud. The parking requirements in the PD are unable to be changed. So we need to reason from this beauty board. The owners are the Denver Metro Association of Realtors and Jobe Construction. And again, this is a rezoning from a Chapter 59 PD to General Urban Multi-unit with a three storey height limit. So the multi-unit zoned district is one of our more urban zone districts with multi-unit structures and the new three, the three story is the lowest height of those residential districts in the general urban context. You were seeing on your screen the surrounding zoning. There is general urban multi-unit three north of the property. Either side of the property is urban edge context mixed use with a three storey height limit and then to the south of the property is single unit with a 6000 square foot property size and this is a picture of the existing land uses. We do have the school next door. We have a green house to the east. That to the west is the school. We've got some single family and multi-unit surrounding the property and generally low density residential and commercial uses. This is just a picture of the surrounding uses. Starting at the top right is the greenhouse to the east of the property. The property itself, which is the office building we're talking about lower right, is the apartment building on the southern parcel of the property and then some single family on the left, lower left that is directly across on the south, the school that is west of the property, and then another single family house north of the property, excuse me. And the process for this application was planning board on March 19th, where the board unanimously recommended approval and then land use committee on April 1st, where this was passed out of committee. This hearing was publicly noticed to all affected registered neighbors organizations, and the property was posted for the required amount of time the R.A. was listed on the screen. Here are were the ones electronically notified? We did receive comments from two of these organizations in support of this application. So the review criteria you're well aware of consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context, and zoned for district purpose and intent. The applicable plans are current plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver. Current Plan 2000 does support this rezoning. It talks about balancing and coordinating our mix of land uses and sustaining a healthy economy encourage or encouraging infill development that's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and that offers opportunities for increased amenities, promoting mixed use development and enhancing access to quality child care. The Land Use Concept for Blueprint Denver's Urban Residential. It is a higher density and primarily residential concept, but does mention including a number of complementary commercial uses in our urban residential areas. The street classification for Warren Avenue is an undesignated local street and I Live Avenue is a residential collector and the area is an area of change . So we do believe this conforms with our current plan in 2000 and blueprint Denver and that it does has no effect on uniformity of district regulations and that in furthering the public health, safety and welfare, it does do that by implementing our plans. The justifying circumstance is changed conditions. As I mentioned, there's a change in the ownership. There is going to be a change in the land use. And since this is in an area of change, we believe this is an appropriate justifying circumstance. We did talk a little bit about the neighborhood context. There is a are a grid system. There is a standard urban context. One thing I forgot to mention is that Warren Avenue is the southern boundary of the Colorado Station General Development Plan and just north of Warren Avenue, the general development plan for Colorado station does call for urban development up to four stories and residential development. And Warren Avenue is a pedestrian primary pedestrian connection into the neighborhood from in that general development plan. So given that this is an existing commercial building, we are simply changing the use and we're rezoning out of an existing chapter. 59 PD CPD recommends approval. I'm here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Miss Lucero, we have three speakers. I'll call on Bob Golic.
Speaker 3: Madam Chair, members of Council. Good evening. My name is Bob GARLICK. My address is 609 South Gaillard Street in Denver. I'm here this evening on behalf of the owners of the subject property in support of Council Bill 267. This is a Chapter 59, APD that goes back almost 30 years. And if you recall this Chapter 59 would have a very site specific district plan, not just showing parking areas, but specific number of parking spaces throughout the site. That's the primary reason we are here. The southern portion, which Teresa referred to as the residential portion, will remain unchanged. And that's a completely separate program that's part of this beauty. It's fenced off. And so parking has two and a half and three story walk up residential facility on it, and that will remain the same. The northern portion has a structure that's about 10,000 square feet, and it's owned by the Denver Board of Realtors. And that site, along with the structure, is being purchased by Primrose Schools. And Primrose is the leading educator of childhood education in the United States, and that's what they're proposing on the site. The problem, the issue we have is we're completely over part for the zoning code. We need about 11 parking spaces. In reality, we're going to put in about 40, but on site we have over 90 for just this area. We want to do an outdoor playground for the kids that are going to be at the Primrose School. So we will absorb some of that parking in the playground. That's the catalyst for this rezoning. We need to change that district plan. The you three is the right zone just because it allows the residential project as well as our daycare. It meets the area of change requirements for this area and it meets the urban designation for the site. We've had a very successful outreach program with the nearby registered neighborhood organizations. There's two letters of support in your packets, one from the Warren University Community Council and the other from the University Hills Register Neighborhood Organization. I'll answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Garlic. Michelle Alexander. Good evening. Thank you for having me. What a great night to be here. My name is Michelle Alexander and I reside at 1925 South Kearney Way Denver. And I'm actually the future owner of hopefully this Primrose School that's going to be going on this property. So I'm here to answer any questions that you have about the school, about the program, or any way that I can help. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Alexander Sekou.
Speaker 8: Yes. German said group lesser action movement for self-defense. Oh, we actually support the zoning change. And one of the processes that is important to us is that as we move to become a more diverse city, then also we look for more diverse opportunities for people to participate in these type of projects, which means what this project represents for my community and my people and the people that I represent poor, working, poor and homeless people whose jobs, as you break it down and you do the asphalt and you change the parking, all the rest of that, we would like to be considered as part of the working crew so that we can come up with the projects too, because we need to go to work. We need jobs. Unemployment inside our community is running rampant. Rampant. Any other community that's experiencing what we're experiencing will be a national epidemic, and yet we treat it like it's nothing. So we ask for the urgency. And for people who are participating and doing these only changes, they represent more than just the numbers and the figures and this standardized recommendation. For us, it represents a way of living. It's about survival for us. So as you go about hiring the contractors, hiring the workers, think about poor, working poor and homeless people and how we can get in and fit in with that so that we don't have this huge gap between the rich and the poor because only those who have it can give it up and reach out and do the right thing. To make pizza.
Speaker 1: Mr. So Suku, you have to dress.
Speaker 8: So my man is over with. I'm through. I got to come. So that's it. So all those developers, all those black folks, men, minority folks, homeless folks, all of that, you need to come down here and meet this lady. So she can see her face, not stay at home and look at the NBA finals and all that mess. You know what I'm saying? Because this is where the real work is done. This is where your life is being decided for years and years and years down the road. So the decisions that we make here today are crucial because they impact the lives of generations, people. And we have to take this serious. I mean, for real, because we got urgent care needing to happen now. Otherwise we have nothing to lose. And only power is what? Die. Go away. Fate. We think better of our animals and dogs and our pets than that. So come on, Joe, for. We can do better than this. So that that racist mess that's going on on the West Side.
Speaker 1: Your time is up, Mr. Reality. Mr. Sekou, did something take your secret? Okay. Hey, are there any questions from those? Are all the speakers we have? Are there any questions from council? Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. I would like the applicant representative to here. I think your microphone is on. Sorry. I would like the applicants representative, Mr. Gorelick, to address the changing circumstances. Could you talk a little bit about that, the requirement in the code and what has changed, please?
Speaker 3: Sure. There are well, there have been several changes in this area. This, as Teresa mentioned, as part of the Colorado Transit Station plan. And one of the aspects of this change is this has gone to a urban residential site and an area of change in Blueprint Denver. And that's why the Gimme three is the appropriate zone district. It is the urban residential three story zone district. So I think the fact that it's so close to the Colorado station, we anticipate that being a terrific market for the parents who will be dropping the children off here and then using the light rail to get into town into work. So we think that's one of the that's the primary change condition.
Speaker 1: The primary change is the plan that was in place. Correct? Transit that's in place. Is a change of ownership part of that? Well.
Speaker 3: It's a change of use because it's going from office to school because it's a PD prompts this rezoning, but the use of the ownership on the southern portion is staying the same. It's the ownership on the northern portion. And these these two projects are just it's like they're joined at the hip because of an old PD. And this is the way to separate this.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Okay. I don't see any other questions. So I'm going to close this public hearing and ask for comments from counsel. And I first call on Councilman Brown.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: This project is in my district. This is a lot of work to be able to construct a playground, but that's the project, the process, and we have to follow it. I'm pro playground. Perhaps I spent too much time there as a child and I'm also pro daycare. And so I gladly support this project and I would encourage my colleagues to support it as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Robb, this is not the reason for my vote, but I want to thank Primrose Schools for being a sponsor of the Colfax marathon. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. All right, look, I think we are ready for the vote, madam secretary.
Speaker 4: Brown High.
Speaker 1: Fives i. Herndon I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Monteiro Nevitt I Ortega I rob shepherd i.
Speaker 3: Brooks Abstain.
Speaker 1: Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Kosovo announced the results. 12 days, one abstention, 12 as one abstention. The bill does pass now. Councilman Lopez, will you please put council bill 245 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Approves the rezoning of 4300 East Warren Avenue and 4275 East Iliff Avenue from PUD 205 to G-MU-3 in Council District 6. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves the rezoning of 4300 East Warren Avenue and 4275 East Iliff Avenue from PUD 205 to G-MU-3 in Council District 6. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-1-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05122014_14-0245
|
Speaker 1: Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Kosovo announced the results. 12 days, one abstention, 12 as one abstention. The bill does pass now. Councilman Lopez, will you please put council bill 245 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Will do. Madam President, I move that council bill 245 series of 2014 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. We are going to open the public hearing on council about 245 and I am going to ask for the staff report for Miss us.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Madam President, members of Council Mrs. Deirdre O's for Community Planning and Development before you Council Bill 245 for a proposed rezoning for a 2423 2490 South University from Gmc's 32grx5 location is in southeast Denver, South Central Denver in Council District six along University Boulevard. This is the westernmost edge of Council District six in University Park neighborhood. The applicant is no doubt Colorado, and recently actually they did close on a property that had been owned by the University of Denver and Colorado Seminary. So the applicant is 100% knowed of Colorado at this time. The property outlined on your screen is approximately 75,000 square feet. And this is a request, an amendment to go from G or General Urban Mixed Use Annex three Story to General Urban Residential Mixed Use five story. With regard to height, that means that there would be an allowance of up to 70 feet for. Residential mixed use with the current allowance as 45 feet in the three storey district. Key characteristics of the grass fire district include a variety of multi-unit residential uses and building forms with a wide, wide range of heights up to 70 feet, often framing low scale single and two unit residential neighborhoods. Commercial is sometimes embedded, but often located along arterials and main streets. And you'll see in a little bit on the slide show some other areas of the city that also have a grade five zoning similar to this block. With the existing context. The current site is on GM x three to the west of Cross University is a commercial block zoned C-Max five. That's an urban center context mixed use five storey district to the south as G and U 12 with an urban overlay for historic and that is specifically a 12 story district that acknowledges the existing condition, especially at the time in 2010, when the zoning was adopted for these sites for existing 12 story buildings and 10 to 12 stories north beyond this block is tr x five as well. With historic structure overlay, there is one little piece that you will see at the corner of Wesley and University that is a 7-Eleven that is not part of this application. With regard to the existing land use context along the site, which is GMF three, it currently contains a lot of commercial business and retail uses 1 to 2 stories, built roughly between 1951 and 1972, low skill commercial with office complexes, often with parking built underneath. And so parking access is both from university and from the alley to the north. And GM x three is, again, as I mentioned, a 7-Eleven to the south. Multi-family residential towers to the east is urban single unit C. So this is a 5500 square foot minimum lot size. Generally speaking, some are larger one, two, two story homes and 5 to 7000 square foot lots. And then to the West University Boulevard and C-Max five Urban Center mixed use five story with commercial and business retail, including auto oriented convenience food sales. That block is also adjacent to kind of accessory block south of the main University of Denver campus. The existing building form and scale is you can see this block actually contains a number of curb cuts, like I said, multiple access and entrance into these sites. The site contains most of the pictures that I'm showing you here, really for the site itself. And then the adjacent block across to the east is Josephine Street from across the alley, and that is predominantly single family. So you can see in that top right photo the context changed between commercial corridor development and residential to the south of that or to the east of that alley. With regard to process, the planning board did hear this on March 5th and voted 9 to 0 to recommend support of this application. It did go to the Land Use Transportation Committee on March 25th and forwarded to City Council for May 12th, 2014. There was a petition of protest that was filed due on May 5th that had been filed by the neighborhood. That petition and protest was evaluated by CPD and does constitute a legal protest in accordance with our zoning code. This means that tonight's vote will require an affirmative vote of ten in order for it to pass. So that is a supermajority of council required tonight. With regard to public outreach, the registered neighborhood groups include University Park Community Council. They did vote prior to planning board and I believe still that vote would hold at 11 to 0 to oppose. The University Neighborhood Group also attended the planning board hearing with one representative. We haven't received a formal written notification from from that group. Signs of been posted on the property and also taken down as I understand. So they were continually put out by the applicant to ensure that there was adequate notice on the sign posting. And we have received letters both in opposition and support. In your packet, I believe there are three additional letters that have been received by us since Planning Board. It is very possible. City Council also has received additional correspondence that we have not seen at the time of Planning Board. Just to give you a visual, this is a very important project and obviously it carries a lot of emotion and weight with it. In the neighborhood, we did put together a public response mapping so you can see kind of where responses are coming from. That doesn't include anything that we've received since Planning Board. We were able to get that map together, but this does show a level of opposition and supports and then you can add three more greens to that letter of support as identified in your first packet are review criteria much like the zoning you've heard prior include consistency with adopted plans, justifying circumstances, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare and consistency with neighborhood context on district and intent. Consistency with adopted plans. We do find in CPD that it is consistent with comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the University Park Neighborhood Plan in Comprehensive Plan 2000. Looking at that 30,000 foot level of environmental sustainability strategy to have to conserve land and infill property across the city to ensure that lands on the outside, that aren't served with infrastructure, are preserved and not developed until we have filled the city and adequately land use strategy three B to encourage quality, infill development and then mobility strategy for continuing to promote mixed use development, particularly in areas of enhanced transit. University Boulevard is identified as enhanced transit corridor and Blueprint in Denver. Here's the Blueprint Denver map. So the site itself is designated as urban residential. It is an area of stability. Now, in your staff reports, I have indicated the two types of areas of stability that are identified in Blueprint. One is reinvestment areas and one of the committed areas reinvestment areas tend to be sometimes larger blocks, but areas that are highly underutilized often are often dated and tend to be long corridors. Like I said, larger areas, committed areas you will often find in a single family residential neighborhood like the neighborhood to the Eastern University Park or the neighborhood to the West in the university neighborhood. This does not mean that change doesn't happen and there is stability. It means that the level of change anticipated is identified and particularly guided by our plans. And especially when you have a neighborhood plan that is of great import to decisions with regard to what happens in a reinvestment or a committed area, in an area of stability, urban residential designation typically means a higher density and primarily residential development . That may include a noteworthy number of complimentary commercial uses. The streets around the site University Boulevard and Harvard University is a residential arterial. Harvard is an and designated local and again university is identified as an enhanced transit corridor with 30 minute headways. The University Park near. Red Plan starts getting into a little more detail. It identifies this block within a couple of different distinctions. First, under a Main Street identification where mixed use oriented and commercial nodes and transit centers is central to that theme. Between two and five stories recommended on blocks like that and 8 to 10 near transit nodes. This block staff does not consider it near a central transit node like the University Station, which is roughly a mile from the site. But it does recommend 2 to 5 stories. Main Street also promotes context, sensitive variation and character, along with thoughtful parking plans, strategic parking to reduce neighborhood overflow. This is very important when you're adjacent to a single family neighborhood. Our developers work to ensure that they are parking their sites in accordance with our zoning regulations and often are are over parking. But they do have parking requirements to ensure that neighborhood impacts are reduced. The other designation of the University Park plan is the Ivy Towers district, and this is identified between Wellesley and Yale, retaining both mixed use between Wesleyan, Harvard and residential context in the remaining area. It supports moderate densities of 3 to 5 stories. So in both cases, and this designation that covers this area five storeys is is roughly the maximum that could be considered in here. And this is really a transitional block within the University Park neighborhood, within the transition from University of Denver heading south. This is a block that really starts to acknowledge a lot of that residential condition heading south down university. The Ivy Tower District also promotes ground floor retail, pedestrian oriented development and a mix of neighborhood serving shops, mix of residential types, etc.. The district's five zone district does promote ground floor retail. It does promote pedestrian oriented development through its building forms and build to requirements. And a mix of neighborhood serving shops are welcome on the ground floor just so you can see a comparison of blueprint. Denver When we do Blueprint Denver that is that is a higher level planning effort. And when you get into a neighborhood plan, you can see the distinction in the University Park plan if you start getting into a little more detail. So I read through most of the detail, but I want to do to see the map sort of side by side and how this block plays out. And that's especially playing out during very thoughtful community discussions during the neighborhood plan efforts. With regards to uniformity of district regulations and furthering public health, safety and welfare, staff concludes the proposed amendment will support uniform application of the district regulations and will maintain and advance public health, safety and welfare through advancing policies and our plans. Districts five would be applied uniformly as it is north of this block, outside of the 7-Eleven, and is a transition block from the neighborhood business core in the due area to the residential part of the corridor. This is just an illustrative this is not something that the applicants proposing to build, but this is the kind of drawing that we would have put forth when we were starting to do our zoning code. UPDATE In 2010 or when he adopted the zoning code was to deliver information about how upper story setbacks and the relationship to that block are are portrayed. So this is a very general concept, but this shows you a little bit about what a building on this block might look like adjacent to an alley and then adjacent to a single family district to the east. Isn't a university park in this case. With regard to public health, safety and welfare. This is consistent with the desired land use plan set forth for the University Park neighborhood in 2008. It provides a desirable and predictable zoning standard, capped at a height of 70 feet. And just to mention in 2010, when the zoning was adopted for the current GM x three, it replaced B2 and B2 had an affair of 2 to 1 and had there was no height limit. So depending on how you built your site, you might have a lot of parking, but a really tall building, you don't really know how that that would play out. And B to our new zoning code does establish these predictable standards. It does require upper story setbacks at 27 feet. It would step back 20 feet from the property line and then at 51 feet, it would go back 35 feet. So another 15 feet in addition. And that's the drawing that I showed you prior, one adjacent to a protected district as defined in our code, and that would be the UCC district to the east. There are also site specific design and development impact studies that are addressed and resolved at the Administrative Site Development Plan stage. This is often one of the biggest concerns for a neighborhood, is looking at what the impact is of a resulting project. We are here tonight to look at it as a district that meets the intent of the plan and for the block, not for looking specifically at the project. But we do refer this out to our development services agencies who have all provided comments, and those are in your staff report that while the rezoning is acceptable to them at this stage, that of course during our development plan, additional traffic studies and I believe ones already underway would be required in addition to wastewater and water and all of the other utility studies that would be required during that stage. A little bit about principal use differences. So that year X five district is actually somewhat more limited in use than the current TMX three. The current TMX three does allow certain uses that aren't even allowed in the District five, including auto emissions out of service uses. Those would be eliminated with the adoption of a two year x five as well as a service repair lab development. Some limited manufacturing would be allowed and that's some very small scale. With regard to consistency, never had contacts and understood purpose and intent and end justifying circumstances. Staff concludes there are justifying circumstances for the proposed amendment and that the proposal is consistent with the context and the intent of the director. Five Pursuant to Section 1214 1014, the land or its surrounding environment has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area and or to recognize the change character of the area. This block is it is for decades has been under-utilised and with rezoning to GM x three it started to make headway toward a more predictable, understandable zoning. But it was also an acknowledgment of at the time the site that was not fully formed and could not be developed in a unified manner and had multiple owners on the University Boulevard Main Street corridor with growth on the boundary of the University Park neighborhood. University Boulevard has been developing over the last 510 years and is consistent in that development with neighborhood plan. The opportunity to reinvest in this block has really only come into play when the owner has had the ability to actually do it in a unified manner. And at this time, as I mentioned, no f Colorado owns the majority of the block outside of a 7-Eleven. Also, this is one of multiple districts that could be established on the block to meet the plan intent in 2010. The as part of that major update to the zoning code and working with the neighborhood but actually a GMC five and urban general mainstreet district and a five story district had been brought forward in a couple of different draft maps, but in a lot of work with the community and input at that time and especially with the owner not ready to really proceed with anything different. What we looked at was acknowledging existing entitlements and still looking for more predictability and compliance with the code. It is one of the districts that could be established on the block, but not the only district. The neighborhood context, purpose and intent. We believe the proposal for Derrick's five is consistent and allows encourages up to five storey buildings. That is consistent with the plan. The block directly north is on Tier x five and the proposed district introduces a focus on residential component of mixed use zoning. Really quickly, here is Derrick's five on the block just north. There is another side at 26 to 20 eighth along Downing, that is also Durex five. There is a direct five large area around Denver health and hospitals. And then a block of decks, 5/22 part Glenarm to Welton. And so there are a number of different contexts here. X five has been proposed oftentimes and in a place where there is a corridor and arterial or some focus area for that development. And here's just a comparison of those areas with regard to what their former zoning was and former Chapter 59 in their blueprint designation. So this block is not and similar to the similar to the other blocks that are that I mentioned. So just a little quote from the plan I think is important. And remember, this plan did come from the neighborhood and from the city and adopted by council that cities thrive on variety, blending different places such as corridors with neighborhoods and at a finer grain level, mixing a variety of building forms and site development patterns within these areas in a rational and orderly way. And that is the evaluation that staff has done. And with that, CPD recommends approval based on the finding that all review criteria have been met.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So we have 23 speakers and so what we'll do, I will call the first five and then when they go, I'll ask the next five so that we can have you sit up in this front row and be ready and be on deck for us. Just a little reminder, you will have three, 3 minutes unless somebody has yielded their time and you will would have 6 minutes. No personal attacks, no profane language, respectful of this of our speakers, because we do want to have everybody have an opportunity to talk about what they'd like to talk about. I'll call up first five are Bob Golic, Christopher Shears, Todd Frisbie, Sean Maley and Andrew Samaras.
Speaker 3: Madam Chair, members of Council. Good evening. My name is Bob Garlic. My address is 609 South Gaylord Street in Denver here this evening. On behalf of the property owners and support of this council bill, as Deirdre mentioned, conditions have changed in this area. And one of the most significant changes is that in 2010, when the zoning code was going through, we didn't know what zoning code update was going through. We didn't own all this property. We owned just a southern corner and then we had a gap and then we owned another parcel and then we had a gap. We didn't know the North Edge, but all in the last 8 to 10, maybe 12 months, we've been able to assemble most of this entire block. So at that time, even though there were two iterations of the zoning code update that showed us at five storeys, it didn't make sense because we didn't have a unified plan. We had a parcel, we didn't. We had a parcel, we didn't. So no one was there to really step up and lobby for it because we weren't we weren't there. We didn't make sense to have five stories at that time. But sorry for the loss. Right now we own we've assembled the entire block and the it makes a lot of sense to zones of five. We are in complete conformance with the UPC plan. The IP Towers District shows this is five storeys. It has a limited mixed use along University Boulevard. And I believe that that plan really got it right and I think our zoning really got it right. This is exactly what we are proposing for that block. We've picked the ARC Zone district as opposed to the Amex, even though there's Amex all around us, up to some 12 story zoning and five story zoning. There's a very subtle difference between the bricks and the mix, but it's very significant. The IRS only allows commercial uses on the ground floor. The annex allows commercial uses on all fours. So our current zoning, we could do ground floor retail with office above. If the R x is approved, we have to do ground floor commercial uses and anything above that has to be residential. It's a transition zone. It's a buffer for the neighborhood. It provides some protection for a residential neighborhood like it is to the east of us. CPD supports this and I have all the respect in the world for CPD and I have all the respect in the world for the planning board. And the planning board had a very thorough discussion of this proposed rezoning, and they voted unanimously 9 to 0 to support this. And the planning board chair at that hearing said if we're not going to put a little more density on University Boulevard, where are we going to put it? And this is an appropriate site for that five storey density. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Garlic, Chris shares.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam Chairman, and members of Council. My name is Chris Shears. I will be the architect for this project if this rezoning is successful with Shears, Adkins Rockmore. And what a pleasure it was to be here in the evening that Alber was recognized. I just have to say that I'm going to show you a series of slides that represent the three dimensional consequences of a rezoning to five from 3 to 5 floors. If I can get this to work and I think you. Dana, I get the wrong. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1: I meant to mention that you have 6 minutes. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And I'm just I'm going to show you a couple of images. When we were first meeting with the neighborhood a year ago, it was apparent that it was important to understand what five stories could be and what the the zoning would would allow. And so we went through an exercise with the neighborhood to show them the computer 3D computer imaging, which you see here in this case. This is from the south west with the building up against South University. And the proposal here and what this represents actually is approximately 230 residences, rental housing, 25,000 square feet of retail, neighborhood oriented retail parking below grade. That's very important. All the parking will be below grade and parking ratio of about 1.3 to 1.4 spaces per unit, which is sort of the, you know, the real thumb for these kinds of projects. The next image. Okay. Here we go. The next image is looking from the south east. And once again, these are very conceptual.
Speaker 4: Can you make those bigger?
Speaker 0: I, I don't think that I can make them bigger unless I have Van's help here. You're about to watch this. This represents the what we think is a very sensitive way to handle the transition between the taller portions of the building and the neighborhood. We've intentionally moved the mass towards the university and stepped the building down. Okay, good. Now, this is much better. Thanks, Dan. And this is out of this is a result of the number of meetings that we had with adjacent neighbors who, of course, were most concerned about the impact of this project. So there isn't one major elevation. All the elevations for this building would be equally important and recognize the setbacks that are required. We also built a very large context model for neighborhood meetings and meetings with with individual property owners. And these to this well, this view represents really the the neighborhood side of the the project, once again, with the major portion of the building setback towards university and the setbacks. And the idea here is that there would be landscaped outdoor spaces along the alley. And we feel this is a pretty sensitive way to handle the project. We also created a couple of very quick images, mostly for planning board, which added some scale and detail to those those models. And while this will change dramatically over time, these images do represent the scale of the project. This is a view down the alley illustrating the setback along the alley. And you can begin to see some of the the trees on the other side of the alley on the right. Now, having said all of that, we've had many, many conversations with neighbors, some support, some opposed. Most recently, we have met with the PCC board member, representatives of their board and listen to their specific requests on the condition that the rezoning would be approved tonight. What would we do? And we made a commitment in the very beginning at our first meeting that we would continue to work with the neighborhood through the design of the project and even to the point where we would include them in some of the meetings with city staff and some of the departments specifically. And maybe most important, the traffic. Traffic, of course, in public works having to do with offsite improvements, access points to the building and with the whole idea that we begin to address the concerns that the neighborhood has. And we've had a I think we've had a good experience with the neighbors. We understand their point of view. It is their neighborhood after all, and we're committed to continue to work with them. It's I think some of you know that a good deal of the work that our company does is infill work. It's project in the projects that are all over the city, that are on sites that haven't been developed, and many of them are parking lots, underutilized pieces of property. And we have an attitude in our office which we require our clients to, to, to have, which.
Speaker 1: Is to shares. Your time is up. Oh.
Speaker 0: My gosh. How time flies. I, I encourage you to support this project in our efforts to continue to work with the neighbors.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Todd Krispy.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam President.
Speaker 4: Madam President and members of council. I'm Todd Frisby with Fell's Burg Holt. And I'm the traffic engineer on this project. And we know that traffic study is not an that's not required in this zoning application. But we felt that the concerns about traffic and access that we should start to look at that early on in the process . And so we went.
Speaker 0: Through we went ahead and did that. We started we.
Speaker 4: Collected some traffic data in the neighborhood and on university. We estimated the project site trip generation using industry standards that we use all the time. And I should note that given the context of this development, it's, you know, on a transit line near a major employer, near a major university, you know, those relationships could be slow, it
Speaker 0: . Could be inflated. Those industry standards.
Speaker 4: Could be a little bit higher than what we're using. But nonetheless, we went ahead with those industry standards and we.
Speaker 0: Overlaid those estimates on the Street Network.
Speaker 4: Put it all together, put together a little traffic memo that was shared with the neighborhood within the last week and and to document our findings. And so this is what this is what we've this is what we found. First, two things. Traffic volumes on university would not be significantly impacted by this by this develop because it would represent a very small.
Speaker 0: Percentage of the traffic.
Speaker 4: On this sort of regional arterial. The second point I want to make is that we looked at the peak hour traffic. There's the highest level of traffic that would be, we're estimating in this development. And so we looked at streets like Josephine and Harvard and Westfield. What would be the traffic potential on those streets with this project? And we came up about of about 100 vehicles per hour during the peak on these streets with that project. Now, if that sounds like a lot, think about it this way. 100 vehicles an hour represents one vehicle every 37 seconds or two vehicles every 1 minutes and 14 seconds. So envision.
Speaker 0: That, you know, if you visit a span of time, one minute and.
Speaker 4: 14 seconds, 15 seconds.
Speaker 0: Approximately two cars will pass by that spot with this project. So hopefully that gives a little bit.
Speaker 4: Of sense of the intensity of traffic that could be generated on some of these neighborhood streets with this project. And also.
Speaker 0: Remember, too, that this is the peak.
Speaker 4: We're looking at the peak hour. There are 23 hours. Other days of the other day were that traffic level would be lower than that intensity. So as I wrap this up, you know, we believe that.
Speaker 0: That the.
Speaker 4: Levels of traffic on this with this.
Speaker 0: Project are within normal levels, that what you would expect in an.
Speaker 4: Urban in an urban setting such as this.
Speaker 0: One.
Speaker 4: On a day, and with the current zoning you could allow there could be a three office office.
Speaker 0: Building of three stories that would generate actually as much.
Speaker 4: Traffic as this project would if the.
Speaker 1: Corporate speak. Your time is up.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Sean Reilly. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'll try to move briefly and not reiterate some points. Good evening, Madam President. Members of Council. My name is Sean Maley. I work at CRL Associates 1625 Broadway and we're representing the owner and developer Tesla developments. This project has certainly generated a lot of discussion and so one of my main goals on projects like this is to carry out a robust public involvement plan. I suppose you could say we've been successful, but I know there are many concerns out there in the community among some of the residents, and I want to let those neighbors know that their voices have indeed been heard. And while the development team is here tonight asking council to approve what we think is a pretty reasonable and well thought out rezoning application, we will remain open to working with the community even if this project is approved in the interest of time. Instead of further detailing our community outreach efforts, I issued a memo to the City Council on May 5th that detailed some of our public outreach. I also have copies on hand for the Council Secretary. I want to spend the bulk of my time talking about a few key items. The first was reiterating the University Park small area plan, but I'm going to skip over that since that was done quite thoroughly by Deirdre and Bob. The second point that I wanted to discuss is the current three storey zoning for the site and the 2010 zoning code update. You may hear a lot tonight about how there is no justification to rezone the site since it was very zoned for 3 to 3 stories in 2010. As you know, there are a lot of properties being resolved in the city on a regular basis that were also resolved in 2010. And the fact is, just as Deirdre pointed out, there's not usually one singular zoned district that is the only of. Appropriate zone district for a piece of property. In fact, the 2010 zoning code overlay. There were a number of maps issued for various neighborhoods. I think in some cases four or even more than four maps per neighborhood. And on multiple of those maps, this property was designated for five stories. There were also quite a few members of the community that advocated against the decision to map this as a three story property at that time and advocated for five stories. Now, if we were here proposing a zone district of, say, eight or 12 stories, there would be no justification that that would not be an appropriate use of of the adopted plans and not an appropriate proposal. But given that the plan says five stories and that the city is open to accepting and processing rezoning applications that do meet the plans and carry out other objectives, we believe this request is well justified. Another item that you may hear about tonight is predictability, and that because this property was very zoned for three stories in 2010 and now four years later being considered for something other that there's no predictability. I suppose it's always the case that very good, well-intentioned people may look at properties, zoning or the zoning of properties adjacent to them and make the assumption that things will not change. But a few things I thought were important to note. The first is the University Park Community Council. The neighborhood group in this area that we've grown to know quite well was one of the main drivers and influencers in that small area plan. And the fact that this height, five storeys, is specifically enumerated in that plan, it should not be a large surprise that a zone district may come in that calls to carry out that height. Secondly, in terms of predictability, if a property owner and developer cannot come in and seek a rezoning application that carries out a height, again, specifically enumerated in an adopted plan, and also deliver upon another of a number of other plan objectives that actually might be unpredictable information. I want to say, with the utmost respect to everybody involved in this process, that the development team has tried throughout this process to go above and beyond the call and look into everything. As you heard from our traffic engineer, we advance a traffic study to share data and information with the neighborhood, and we've committed to work with the neighborhood well beyond the potential approval tonight with regards to site access locations, how southbound traffic access is handled and anything we can do to deter against neighborhood traffic. When an adjacent neighbor raised concerns about solar panels on their roof, we took it very seriously. We had Chris, his office, look into a solar analysis to see how this development would impact sun angles and the adjacent properties. And what we found was that except for a very small portion of the year, basically the winter time when the sun is at its very lowest angle, that is the only time that this project would cast shade on the adjacent block and quite frankly, many, many properties across the city at, say, 3 p.m. on December 21st, which this analysis showed are going to deal with shade at that time. So we were actually quite happy with the results of the solar study and it's something that we take very seriously. We heard about parking from the neighborhood and how in their area overflow parking on their streets would would certainly not be welcome. We also take that very seriously. As such, we've done market studies for the type of parking ratios that a project like this needs to be successful. And what we are doing is is exceeding code requirements on parking levels in all instances. And finally, we heard a number of concerns from the adjacent block who feared about their property values and lifestyle. And in response to the Josephine neighbors, we want to let them know that we really do care, that this is just the rezoning stage, that there are many other things that we look forward to continuing to work with them on. And I'll wrap up right now and be available for any questions. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Andrew Sampras. And while you're coming up, Mr. Samaras, I'd like to call Karen Hutchinson, Benjamin Blackwood, Michael J. Hicks, Jennifer Robinson and David Thorpe.
Speaker 4: Madam President, may pass some things to.
Speaker 1: Hand them to the secretary, but be great.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Good evening. This has been a wild experience. It's been amazing. So thank you for letting me speak to you tonight. Madam President. Council members. Good evening. My name is Andrew Summers. I live at 2441 South Josephine directly behind the proposed property, along with my wife Tracy, my two daughters. We've lived there for ten years. Over ten years, I was lucky enough to grow up two miles from the neighborhood. Born and raised in Denver. Went to place middle school. I was ecstatic when I got the chance and my wife and I were able to purchase a home in the University Park neighborhood. It was amazing. We're lucky. I'm here tonight to appeal to you, to open your minds and think about things from a different point of view. And I'm going to paint a picture that is relatively something you've heard before in the zoning meetings and proceedings. And I appreciate that. And I'm aware of that. So I don't want to be the same old broken record that you've heard in the past. But I do ask for you to have an open mind. In 2008, the Tesla management people, along with a new tenant, tenant that they brought towards us that they soon would call the University Park Grill, approached the neighborhood to ask for support and them obtaining a liquor license for what they described as would be a family restaurant. And they were adamant about that. The neighborhood was led to believe that this restaurant would be an upgrade to the trash infested and graffiti infested parking lot that was had boarded up windows and unsafe and decrepit buildings. The neighbors agreed to construct a good neighbor agreement that would highlight a few mutually agreed upon compromises that the tenant and Tesla management would follow. The neighbors did not oppose the liquor license. A few weeks after the University Sports Grille opened, the chaos began. The neighbors had feared and it had become evident. The chaos included music past the hours that were agreed upon. Vandalism. Many alleys. Our properties were vandalized. Intoxicated patrons that were fighting in the parking lot at all hours in the evening. Park patrons parking in our driveways, overfilled trash, dumpsters. And on Sunday mornings and Wednesday mornings and Monday mornings, it smelled like a fraternity house outside. When we would call the University Park Grille or go over there, we were told things like, it's not our fault. Or they would just tell us they couldn't take the phone call. On numerous occasions, neighbors called 911 to complain, and on many occasions the police reports were filed during one inspection due to a complaint made by an an about an all day beer pong tournament that included deejays, live music and intoxicated patrons that were storming the alleys . It was found that the building permits that they filed were fraudulent, and even the permit that the management had used for their all day parties was fraudulent. And there are data in the package that you have as well to support that email to the city council, to the management company, to the tenants. They were beginning to pile up. Even Councilman Charlie Brown was involved in some of those correspondence and those were also in the packet for you. I've also included some pictures in the packet and I think it's worthy of your time to look at them and see some of the advertisements, what we lived through, what we saw, what we dealt with, and what was the comment on the web. Following a few changes and partners of the business due to lack of funding, the University Park Grill was out of business. Then they changed hands to become the Mercedes University Park Grill to keep the liquor license intact. And that just became a burrito stance on Saturday mornings. The entire University Park neighborhood is begging for Jerry develops. We are hoping it gets redeveloped, but the three stories that it's eligible to be redeveloped for, for now is perfect. It's what's needed. It's what we're asking for. And we don't deserve to live behind what we've been living for living through for the past ten years. The Tessler family has owned this property for over 38 years. The property right behind my house 38 years, the property to the right, 38 years. It's never changed. It's gotten worse. There's boarded up Windows Pictures in your package to prove it. What we're asking for is to have you look at it from a different point of view. I asked you how you would feel if it was your home, if it was the family you want to raise in the neighborhood that you're proud of. Where we want to stay. Why reward an owner who has done nothing to be part of the neighborhood and did not participate in the 2010 rezoning at all? At this time, it's pretty obvious, but I'd like to have any of the neighbors that oppose the rezoning stand up. That's an amazing support. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Samaras. Karen Hutchinson. My name is Karen Hutchinson and I reside at 2300 South Monroe Street and I am here in favor of the project. I have lived in the neighborhood for 17 years and over the 17 years the neighborhood has seen lots of change, most of it very good. I think most agree the neighborhood has become very desirable to live in. And over time, a lot of the commercial enterprises around have improved. The King Soopers University Park Shopping Center being probably the main improvement. When I spoke in favor of this at the neighborhood meeting, someone asked me if I lived close to the project. I do not live close to the project anecdotally, however. I lived in Capitol Hill for 13 years among many high rises and apartment buildings, and I also lived in Congress Park for a total of seven years behind an apartment building. In both cases, over that 20 years, I found that my property increased its value over town over time. And so to say that property values will be affected, I believe, is not necessarily true. I also want to point out that though I don't live close to the project, I do live close to Colorado Boulevard and I'm pretty close to the medical marijuana dispensary facility, which I would love to talk to each and every one of you about. I haven't found that that has been a great addition to the neighborhood. However, some things do come. I believe that this is going to be a first rate project and the neighborhood needs upscale living facility. If you're living in Denver, we've talked all night about how Denver is a first class city. The Union Station Project is going to add a lot to our living, and I believe that this is just another step in that same direction. Please support the project. Thank you, Ms.. Hutchinson. Benjamin and I can't read all of us. There it is. Benjamin Blackwood. And you have 6 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: My apologies in advance. Yeah, it's 430 in the morning. I don't know where you are, but I'm at my desk. So at 9:00 at night, I'm going.
Speaker 4: To read this just so I don't mess it up.
Speaker 0: If that's all right with everyone. My name is Ben Blackwood.
Speaker 4: I live at 3275 East Wesley.
Speaker 0: You may recall that street just on the map there a minute ago, other than neighborhood for four years, we actually moved in the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Specifically to be in the neighborhood.
Speaker 0: In that time, I've learned how the neighborhood operates. I am opposed to the zoning, of course, for a number of reasons. The biggest being that it just does not meet the test of the justifying circumstances of the Denver zoning code. The developer states in the application that a zone map amendment is warranted because the land or its surrounding environments have changed or is changing. To agree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area, to recognize the change character of the area. This reasoning is to change. The subject site relates to the applicant controlling or sorry, the applicant obtaining control of two of the parcels created under the ability of the master plan of the property. Underlying planning, zoning regulations for particular land use are enacted for residents of the community, along with owners of commercial property to use as a road map and rely on as a guide for the direction of their collective community per the applicant. The majority of the property has been owned by the same family for almost 40 years. This ownership period covers the timeframe from the early 2000 to 2010, when the current zoning.
Speaker 4: Was studied intently.
Speaker 0: With great participation.
Speaker 4: Between the city, the community and then quote and then codified.
Speaker 0: The applicant is surely come to understand the land, the surrounding environments, the character of the neighborhood over its ownership period. In the three and a half years since the current zoning was enacted, there certainly has been no change in the area. I've lived there for years. I can attest to that. The assumption is that a change in ownership would trigger in land surrounding environments or the character of the area is just not accurate. We understand that zoning regulations should provide a framework for the land excuse me land use regardless of its underlying ownership. City if city council were allowed to allow for the land assemblage to trigger an increase in allowable heightened density, then we would set a very dangerous precedent. I believe private development should be carefully planned with an understanding of what is allowable in a particular land parcel from the onset. The idea that solely the creation of common ownership on multiple land parcels would be rewarded with a rezoning to allow for greater density and more height. Which was. Bolton increased traffic, further loss of privacy, loss of sunlight is really not in the best interests of any community, especially ours. The planning staff, on the other hand, included differing, justifying circumstances in their report. And again, as longtime residents in the neighborhood, we fail to see how even their reasoning is support to exhibit a change in the area. They gave two reasons why the rezoning is justified. First Estate, the University Boulevard Main Street corridor has become a subject of substantial growth on the boundary of the University Park neighborhood over the past several years. Since the current version of the Denver Zoning Code was enacted in 2010, there have been two residential and commercial structures built on the stretch of South University Boulevard. The first is one observatory park, which is located in an intersection of University and Evans, which just finished up last year. It was rezoning 28 prior to the new zoning code. The second new building is an area of Observatory Park Place, located at 2350 South University Boulevard that's zoned Zurich's five. When the zoning code was enacted in 2010 and this new structure was built on the property in 2013, conforming to the existing code. While it's true, there are two new buildings constructed since 2010. Both conform to the zoning that was put in place at that time. And as a result of the efforts of the community and the city in the early 2002 2010, the construction of the two buildings in four years is not substantial growth and there are no other buildings this area currently under construction that would help support that position. Planning such second reason was I believe rezoning is justified is the University Park neighborhood has also seen substantial change in terms of meeting new demands for single family residential construction in four years living in the community. The neighborhood essentially built fully out over the last 20 plus years when movement towards replacing existing housing stock. The single family construction, which has occurred in the Unified Park neighborhood, very simply replaces One World War Two era single family home with one modern era single family home. If one family in a modern home replaces one family lived in a legacy home, then the result on the density has a net zero impact. Further, at this point, since the new zoning code was enacted in 2010, a trend that began in the 1990 of replacing existing housing stock has simply continued forward to today. The single family construction we see today is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. Park University Park neighborhood. Again, we have not seen a change in the area from 2010 to today that would support a rezoning of this property. I, along with a lot of other people, are very much in support of the redevelopment of the site. I think it's an eyesore, to be honest. There is no reason to believe a redevelopment cannot be achieved under the existing zoning of the property. The applicant nor the planning staff has provided a reasonable justifying circumstance which would warrant an amendment to the zone map. The neighborhood participated in an extensive, thorough and inclusive process from the early 2000 to 2010, and through that collaboration in the city, it was concluded that three storey mixed use was reasonable. There's truly been no change in York City Park since 2010 that would warrant a change in funding. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Blackwood. Michael Hicks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I've been speaking on zoning and architecture issues since Elbrus. And in that chair and suitcases that in your chair. And my late friend Jennifer Moulton had Brad's job. So I appreciate being here, being able to speak and to my neighbors. I'm speaking, in all honesty, for this development because I believe in it. I believe it's the best thing for the neighborhood. The first thing I did when I found out that the University Park Council voted against this was to look up what the developer has done. Not only do I look up what the developer has done on vacation visiting my daughter in New York, I visited five of his properties. They are impeccable. They were some of the best architecture in the city of New York, if not the world. Some of the best architects there impeccably maintained their beautiful artwork in the lobbies. Our neighborhood deserves this type of project. I've been personally involved because I really think something can be done better with that block. I also believe a development of this scope is better than individual three storey type structures that would allow a lot allow a lot of individuality, access and very little landscaping off the alley to buffer the development to the adjoining neighbors. I think the improvements in the alley are significant. The fact that the developer is going to go below grade and build parking spaces at the astronomical cost of $25,000 a car to avoid the headlights that would be coming in and going out of that project is incredible. It's something the neighborhood deserves. I urge you to vote for this project. You will be seeing a lot of projects like this in the future. This is a good development. This is a good developer. They have worked honestly and in concert with the neighborhood in several meetings. I trust them. I believe in them. I trust the architect. This process needs to move forward. We need to engage with the neighbors. We need to make this a better project. That's what University Park Community Council is known for. Engagement with the developers, improving our neighborhood. We can do this. We should do this. Do not close the door to a developer of this caliber. Denver needs this project. Our neighborhood needs this project. Please consider this very carefully. Vote for this project. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Sorry I didn't have any notes. I always speak from the heart.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Jennifer Robinson. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Robinson.
Speaker 5: My husband, Brad Robinson and I.
Speaker 1: Are single family, homeowners and residents at two, four, three, three South Columbine Street in the University Park neighborhood of Denver. We oppose the application.
Speaker 5: To rezone the.
Speaker 1: 2400 block of South University Boulevard because it and the proposed development are not consistent with the University Park Neighborhood Plan and Blueprint Denver and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The developer has plans to construct a massive 500 foot length by 80 foot wide by 70 foot tall structure with 236 units.
Speaker 5: This would have the largest footprint and possibly the largest.
Speaker 1: Volume of any building in the neighborhood. The University Park Neighborhood Plan on page 70 recommends that the mass of new construction should, quote, relate the aggregate volumes of new construction to traditional development patterns, unquote. The University Park Neighborhood Plan on page 70 also states. The goal should be to, quote, create buildings that provide human scale, unquote. This proposed building would extend nearly the entire block. No other building in the neighborhood extends this length with a height of 70 feet. You can see exhibit D of the zone map, map amendment application. The proposed dwelling units per acre or D is 137. There will be 236 units in 1.72 acres, which gives us a day of 137. This is high density by any standard. Several of the other apartment buildings one block south in the Ivy Tower district, already have high density dwellings. Blueprint Denver states that only occasionally should developments in areas of this type classified as urban residential by blueprint denver exceed 100 you. That's only occasionally. This proposed development would make the Ivy Towers District along South University Boulevard provide predominantly high way.
Speaker 5: This conflicts with Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 1: It's also complex, with a moderate density recommendation for the Ivy Towers district as put forth in the Park Neighborhood Plan Plan on page 116. The Park Neighborhood Plan states on page 58 that any attempt to alter the zoning along South University Boulevard should apply height, quote, height and box standards that are more responsive to community preferences, unquote . The community is overwhelmingly opposed to this rezoning. We support the development of a three storey mixed use building. The rezoning in 2010 concluded that Street three stories was the most appropriate for this area. The zoning should not be changed without proper justification. In summary, the current zoning Gmc's three just approved in 2010, already allows for a beautiful mixed use development of three storey buildings, which would be consistent with the University Park Neighborhood Plan and Blueprint Denver and would preserve the character of the neighborhood. We do support a development of this type. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. David Thorpe. But while you're getting up there, let me call in Linda Gill, Pat Barron, Jennifer Schmidt, Will Jones and Debbie Harrington to please come up to the front pew. This won't cut into your time. Go ahead, Mr. Thorpe.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Good evening, city council members. It's an honor to be here with you tonight. I am a resident of University Park. I live at 2315 South Cook Street. My son attends University Park Elementary, and my wife is a professor at Iowa School of Theology right there in the neighborhood. Back in 2010, I had the joy of being a co-chair of the Neighborhood Zoning Committee during the rezoning process, and it was a great experience to interact with the neighborhood folks and and and look at all the zoning. And by and large, there was unanimity of the zoning that was placed across the neighborhood, with the exception of one place. And that is this place that we are talking about tonight. And I was vocal in my opposition to two to a GM three zoning and it was because of the height limit that in my concern and my concern is based on about 30 years of experience in real estate development in construction, including some pretty complicated mixed use projects. I expressed that if we don't give the zoning, the height, the land owners the height needed, you couldn't get the great walkable retail along the street that you need. It's just an economic challenge for any developer. Putting that retail level in at the bottom floor is an economic drag on development. I can speak from experience to that, so I'm not surprised at all that now that the land's been assembled, there is a great developer with a really great architect who I've worked with in my role at Shaw Construction, doing some doing a great plan for for an for a neighborhood that needs great walkable retail. So I think I really want to encourage you folks to consider approving this zoning to a five storey height limit. It will it will do great things for the neighborhood. I think in a net effect, it will reduce traffic if more of us from the neighborhood decide to walk to the great retail instead of driving our cars. So thank you and have a good evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Tharp. Linda Gill and you have 6 minutes. Thank you, Madam President, and council members. My name is Linda Gill and I live at 2394. South Josephine University Boulevard narrows quickly on this block in question. This past week, there were two serious accidents here, three days apart. Both cars struck a street light pole that has been hit and replaced at least 12 times in the recent past and three times in the last two months. The most recent accident happened yesterday. I have photos. This was Sunday morning and it was a rollover accident when they hit the light pole right at that intersection. I have been told that the pioneer owners in front of that light pole have requested multiple times that something be done and have gotten no response from the city. This quick narrowing of university on this black also causes vehicle stacking. There is no traffic light or turnout lane. Impatient motorists pull out, try to go around the stack of cars and cause collisions. Pedestrians attempt to cross this intersection to reach the DU campus or the 7-Eleven with no crosswalk, no stoplight, and now no street light. This is not a car pedestrian or bike friendly boulevard by any stretch. This entire project will only add to the current problem. We need to be proactive and realize that if the traffic safety problems are not being addressed now, they certainly will not improve with the passage of this rezoning request. Parking for this many units is also an issue. Tenants, guests and shoppers will opt to use the already scarce but free street parking to avoid the high monthly garage parking fees or the inconvenience and cost of hourly garage parking. I am standing here now to tell you very clearly we have traffic, safety and parking issues now and they will only get worse if you approve this up zoning request. Lastly, I would like to address the preliminary traffic report that was done by the developer and given to the neighborhood a few days ago. This cannot possibly be used in any way, shape or form to support this project. It is not being reviewed by the city professionals and it appears to be a check the box item by the developer. More importantly, there are glaring inaccuracies in the report. The trip generation rate claim claims 120 AM peak trips out of the development for 236 apartments.
Speaker 5: That will not attract.
Speaker 1: Student residents. According to assurances from the owner. How then will the other? At a minimum, 116 residents be getting to work. Well, these 116 people will be standing at the bus stop. 26,000 square feet of retail space was used to calculate the specialty retail trip generation figure. Yeah, this is confusing to.
Speaker 5: Me because the footprint of this building.
Speaker 1: Is 40,000 square feet. The entire first floor is supposed to be designated retail. So I'm not sure how 40,000 square feet turns into 26,000 square feet of retail space. The traffic impact chart seems designed to hide the actual number of increased vehicles by using a vehicle frequency number, instead using the provided numbers which are questionable. It can be calculated that cars will double on Josephine, north of Wesley, to 102 cars per hour, and cars on Harvard, west of Josephine, will also double to 105 cars an hour. Wesley and Harvard, east of Josephine, are missing from the report. These are the streets that comprise a huge part of the neighborhood because they head into the heart of the neighborhood and they are not included because according to the report, all car traffic will totally avoid these streets and will gravitate onto it. I live in Evans. Does gravity mean levitate? Because you get to Evans and I left. These cars will be driving through our neighborhood. Having car traffic double on any of our residential streets is completely unacceptable. Please note that the increased traffic from guest service trucks, moving vans, delivery trucks is never addressed. And finally, I will quote directly from the traffic report. Under the heading existing traffic, it states quote, In the PM peak, our university carries over 2200 vehicles in both directions under.
Speaker 5: Traffic impacts at full buildout. The conclusion states, quote.
Speaker 1: University Boulevard traffic is expected to be about 2200 vehicles. Please listen closely. University Boulevard currently carries 2200 vehicles during the peak hour. And after this monolithic building is complete, University Bill Boulevard will have the exact same number 2200 vehicles during the peak PM hour, exactly the same amount. By this point, you should be very skeptical. Please vote now. I also have further photos that I would like to show you because I have one minute left single family homes back to this project. Behind the behind all the other projects on university are fraternity, sorority and.
Speaker 5: Student housing and due.
Speaker 1: Offices. Single family density is very apparent on this drawing here, and I can leave this here for you to look a little closer if you want. This is Tabor House, which is next. It's this 1970s building that is next to this project. It's 70 feet tall. This is how it will look and feel for our entire street right here. Vacant apartments in the area.
Speaker 5: According to Denver.
Speaker 1: Apartment Market Report, apartment supply is at a ten year high and demand is not keeping place. Pace. Occupancy is down for the second straight quarter. Ms.. Gil, your time is up. Thank you very much. I'd like to call on Pat Barron.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Pat Baron. I reside in Denver and I'm here to support this project. My wife and I purchased our home in University Park over 30 years ago, and that time we've witnessed the mostly positive transformation of the University Park neighborhood. Along with several other members of the University Park Community Council. I was a member of the steering committee. We worked with the City Planning Department to formulate the 28 University Park Neighborhood Plan. This parcel, as Deirdre said, and was referred to as the Ivy Towers district and states that heights of up to five stories are appropriate. It also encourages development of mixed use projects along major arterials. I developed the five story mixed use project known as University Lofts in the northeast corner of University Evans, consisting of four stories of student housing over ground floor retail and underground parking. With the density we were able to achieve through the rezoning process, we were able to construct the underground parking and maximize the building size above grade to make the project economically viable. Without that density, it would not have made any economic sense. Structured and underground parking, as suggested in the neighborhood plan, is a much better solution for the neighborhood than surface parking. You will simply get a better quality, more walkable project with five stories than you will with three. And the 30 years we've lived in the neighborhood, we've also seen an increase in traffic, which is inevitable in any city that is growing. I would much rather be in a vibrant, growing city than one in decline. Increased traffic and growth go hand in hand. And I would also submit to you, however, that I think the majority of the increased traffic is made up of commuters who drive through the neighborhood as opposed to traffic generated by neighborhood projects. But we've also seen the addition of a terrific public transportation solution in the form of light rail excuse me, the University Park Light Rail Station has been great for the neighborhood. Many of us walk to the station and use the system regularly to get downtown. The team the developer has assembled is second to none. Collectively, they produced multiple projects that are an integral part of the Denver landscape. I also applaud the developer and his team for reaching out to the neighbors, listening to their concerns and addressing those concerns in the ultimate design of the project. Thank you for your time tonight and I encourage you to support the rezoning of this property.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Baron. Jennifer Schmidt. You have 6 minutes. Thank you. My name's Jennifer Schmidt, and I'm the outgoing president of the University Park Community Council. R.A. I've been on the board of the PCC for about five years, and I took the position as president just this past August, stepping up from vice president for a brief but really exciting time. I believe it's difficult to find volunteers for Reno's and PTA and other organizations. However, University Park has stepped up. We've become an engaged and active community. During my nine months as president, I found two new board members as well as many new volunteers. Just because people started to pay attention. When we said rezone, neighbors care about their property, their neighbors property and the overall feel of their community. There have been informational meetings for almost a year held by the development team as well as our R.A. and I am still getting phone calls and emails asking to sign a petition, asking to get involved and what can I do? These aren't just immediate neighbors. These are these volunteers range from Colorado Boulevard on the east to South Josephine and South University Street on the West. This is a neighborhood issue, not an immediate neighborhood issue, immediate neighbors issue, excuse me. And it was astounding to me that in today's Denver Post article that it was said that the neighborhood talks with the developer resulted in the changes, reducing the project from eight stories to five stories, when in reality it was because it is because of the protected district negotiated regulations. Our community has been overwhelmingly opposed to this rezoning application. Not only have we taken a survey to determine this, but we have made and fielded phone calls and emails about this topic. I have spent hours and hours on the phone with people of our community explaining the process to them and expressing to them that, yes, rezoning can happen even if all the homeowners adjacent to the property object, even if we have a legalized petition, the rezoning still can pass. These neighbors have been disappointed time after time, feeling like their city government is failing them. So the planning board didn't listen and discouraged that there's nothing we can do as neighbors. We showed great representation at the planning board meeting with approximately 30 neighbors in attendance during the middle of the day on a Wednesday. And tonight, as you see and saw earlier, that we have a great number in attendance after being rescheduled, reworked and with great weather. Our neighborhood from South University to South Colorado is engaged in this project. They do not want to see it resound. We could. We would all like to see it developed. But within the current zoning requirements that allow us to trust our city government and our city's zoning, and to have a predictable system that works for its people , that pay taxes, not just the businesses that do. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt. Will Jones.
Speaker 0: Madam President. Council members my name is Wil Jones. I am the external communications manager for the University of Denver, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the University of Denver. The University of Denver supports the proposed rezoning of the 2400 block of South University Boulevard. Over the past 15 years, the University of Denver has spent nearly $1,000,000,000 working to improve the infrastructure and buildings on campus. As we continue this growth, we are supportive of projects such as this one that are both reasonable and practical and will advance the development on our immediate perimeter, the University and Evans corridors, which are both gateways to the University of Denver. This plan for this portion of South University is also consistent with the city or excuse me, with what the city of Denver has been planning for some time now. As such, and after much careful consideration by both the administration and the board of trustees. Do you sell this property at 2420 South University to the developer? The University of Denver supports this plan of the developer for multifamily, housing, retail and underground parking on South University Boulevard. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Debbie Harrington. And as you're coming up, I'm going to call the next five, Rosemarie Stoffel, Vaughn Kendall, Patrick Cashin, Jake Norris and David Foster. Welcome. Thank you. Right ahead. Thank you. I think I've got some good news. First of all, my name is Debbie Harrington. I live on the 2400 block of South Josephine, immediately behind the parcel in question. My good news is that I think most of the points that I had planned to make have been made. So I won't be.
Speaker 5: Taking my whole 6 minutes and a quarter.
Speaker 1: Of tilt here, and I hope that makes everybody.
Speaker 7: Happy.
Speaker 1: I would like to.
Speaker 5: Say a couple of things. So these are really off the cuff. One thing that I think.
Speaker 7: Deirdre.
Speaker 1: Said was that the our block is predominantly single family. And I'd.
Speaker 7: Like to clarify that it is entirely.
Speaker 1: Single family at the.
Speaker 5: Block that.
Speaker 1: Is immediately behind the alley from the property. Also, I would like to point out that no one has really talked about the fact that just about a mile, maybe three quarters of miles south of this property, I know it's an Englewood and we're Denver.
Speaker 7: But there is a property of.
Speaker 1: 600 units that is scheduled to open here in the next few months.
Speaker 7: Kent Place, which is going to create a tremendous outpouring of traffic.
Speaker 1: Onto the already congested University Boulevard, which also concerns us in addition to any other development that's going to occur, that's going to add cars.
Speaker 5: And I had another point, but I lost.
Speaker 1: Track of it. So anyway, I was going to talk about justifying circumstances, but Ben Black did a wonderful job talking about that. So thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Harrington. Rosemary Stauffer. And you have 6 minutes. My name is Rosemary Stoffel and I live at 2275 South Monroe Street. I'm a current.
Speaker 7: Board member of UPC.
Speaker 1: He was chair of our Neighborhood Plan Committee and co-chair of our Zoning Code Update Committee. Our neighborhood plan was adopted in 2008, and it created a general vision, a guide only for University Park. It informed the decision by CPD in partnership with the Zoning Code Update Committee to recommend rezoning the site in 2010 from B-2 to GM x three. That designation provided two benefits. It increased development potential and was sensitive to the negative.
Speaker 7: Impacts on the residential neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Directly behind the three storey designation was a deliberate decision. There was consensus among committee members regarding this park, with only one member expressing reservations. Both CPD and our committee agreed that three stories.
Speaker 7: Was the appropriate zoning for that site in.
Speaker 1: 2010. We were surprised earlier in this process to see the Gmc's three zoning called a holding zone in the developer's rezoning application and then an adequate replacement by CPD in their recommendation for approval. If current zoning can be looked at in these terms, what does this mean for property elsewhere in the city? There is a perception that the current public policy is biased in favor of increased density over neighborhood concerns, even with unnecessary transit options and resulting traffic. So solutions woefully lacking and that most proposals for increased density are readily approved in our area of stability. The supposed justification.
Speaker 7: For increased density seems a real stretch. CPD's interpretation of this rezoning proposal.
Speaker 1: Which is so contrary to our interpretation, adds to the perception that evaluations are skewed in favor of developer requests. We also wonder if this streamlined way of considering rezoning is geared more toward efficiency.
Speaker 7: Rather than careful consideration of each unique.
Speaker 1: Situation. We've certainly been frustrated by the constrictions in the narrow ways in which this rezoning proposal has been allowed to be considered. Our neighborhood plan does indeed include the phrase moderate density, 3 to 5 stories and making general.
Speaker 7: Recommendations for.
Speaker 1: That area. We maintain that the number three means as much as the number five, and that the term moderate.
Speaker 7: Density does.
Speaker 1: Not mean 236 dwelling units on that site. It has been frustrating to see.
Speaker 7: Many other recommendations.
Speaker 1: In our plan be overlooked and minimized in numerous places. It is recommended that future development.
Speaker 7: Be responsive to community.
Speaker 1: Preferences and the community has overwhelmingly expressed opposition to a five storey high density development on that site. The plan recommends that future development provide a context.
Speaker 7: Sensitive edge.
Speaker 1: And be compatible with the.
Speaker 7: Character of the.
Speaker 1: Surrounding neighborhood. Which do you think is more compatible and context sensitive next to single family homes? 70 Theater Fri 45 feet high density or moderate density? The plan further recommends that intensity and density step down as distance from light rail increases. This site is more than a mile from.
Speaker 7: The closest light rail station. It is also directly.
Speaker 1: Across the alley from single family homes.
Speaker 7: A stepped.
Speaker 1: Down development, both in height and density, makes sense. The assumption that residents and workers in this area will decrease their car usage is unrealistic. Although this is labeled a transit rich corridor.
Speaker 7: The transit options are inadequate. Light rail is.
Speaker 1: Too far away and bus service is infrequent. It is a given that increased density will have a negative effect on the traffic in an already problematic corridor. We are not opposed.
Speaker 7: To redevelopment of.
Speaker 1: The site.
Speaker 7: Under the existing.
Speaker 1: Zoning, redevelopment could be an asset.
Speaker 7: To our neighborhood. The fact that there is significant opposition to this rezoning is not.
Speaker 1: A kneejerk anti-development reaction. We claim foul for reasons which we believe are valid. I'd like to note that we appreciate the involvement of Councilman Brown in working with public works to.
Speaker 7: Address neighborhood concerns about traffic issues related.
Speaker 1: To the proposed project. We also acknowledge that the developer's representatives have made a commitment to work with the neighborhood stakeholders. In the event the rezoning application is approved. This rezoning proposal merely reflects an opportunity which the city provides perhaps too easily. It is that opportunity which we question, given the fact that we thought the Gmc's three zoning was a done deal, that we firmly believe that the current zoning conforms to our neighbor. Had planned better than the proposed zoning and that transit options aren't in place to accommodate the increased density. We wonder why this particular opportune opportunity has so readily been approved all the way through this process so far. Thank you for taking the time and effort to consider objections before making your final decision tonight. Thank you, Mr.. Von Kendall.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Vaughn Kendall and I live at 2620 South Fillmore Street. And I take a position that I support the three storey apartment complex building, but I don't support the five storey. I'm not a developer. I lived in the neighborhood for four years. My kids go to school there. It's an awesome, beautiful neighborhood, a great place to walk. And I envision when I go to bed at night and look out the window or if I'm in the backyard with my kids. I envision what it would look like to look out there and see this big five story apartment complex out there with people looking down on me and people looking in my bedroom. And it's it would to me be horrible. And so I look at how the people on on Josephine would feel, and I'm not sure they would want to stay there after that. Years ago, when I tried to put a fence in the front of my house, I wanted five feet and the code was three feet. So I had to go ask my neighbors and the neighbors wanted it left at three feet. So that's what I did. I built a three foot fence, so I sort of feel that within Denver, if you want to do something, you need to get the okay of your neighbors and the neighbors there don't want it. So I ask you if if you lived in the houses on Josephine, if if you would support the zoning change from three stories to five storeys. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Kendall. Patrick Cashin. And you have 6 minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Patrick Cash and I live at 2160.
Speaker 0: South Milwaukee Street.
Speaker 1: In the University Park neighborhood.
Speaker 0: I'm in the zoning chair for the R.A. for the past 12 years. In the last ten.
Speaker 1: Years, there have been three rezonings in our neighborhood.
Speaker 0: All of which the University Park neighborhood has supported. The first one was in 2004 at Colorado in Evans. This was a seven acre grocery store site. It was ultimately rezone to a mixed use site with an 85 foot height limit. The second one occurred in 2006 at University in Evans, North Northeast Corner. That was previously a B2 zoning and was zone.
Speaker 1: To GM x 30, which.
Speaker 0: Ended.
Speaker 1: Up in a five storey mixed.
Speaker 0: Use.
Speaker 1: Development.
Speaker 0: Most recently in 2008, the Southeast.
Speaker 7: Corner University.
Speaker 0: In Evans. That property was previously zoned R three and was rezone to a mixed use development as well with a 11 storey height. All these were in the very beginning of the transit transit oriented development process that the city encouraged in the early 2000s with the like with the arrival of light rail in 2006. So all these all these developments made sense. Arterial streets, lots of transit density at the big intersection corners.
Speaker 1: And we felt that that certainly.
Speaker 0: Made a great deal of sense. The other commonality with these three developments is.
Speaker 1: That there.
Speaker 0: Are buffers between these high density developments and.
Speaker 1: The single family.
Speaker 0: Dwellings in the neighborhood. Sometimes the developments.
Speaker 1: Are three or 400 feet away from the closest single.
Speaker 0: Family house. The interesting part about the last project at at University in Evans is we actually suggested a redevelopment or a rezoning to the developer. He was keen on keeping the Project.
Speaker 1: R three, which was.
Speaker 7: Residential only.
Speaker 0: And we felt that a mixed use with ground floor retail would better support our neighborhood as well as the 13,000 people a day that.
Speaker 1: Wander around the campus. So we actually encouraged him to rezone it.
Speaker 0: He was reluctant at.
Speaker 1: First, but eventually.
Speaker 0: Proceeded and we supported that. The other outcome of these projects was that we had developed an experienced staff of.
Speaker 1: Volunteers that ultimately finished the small area plan in 2008 and also then transitioned into.
Speaker 0: 2012. Zoning Code 2010 Zoning Code Update We felt that we had a good team to work with there and worked with CPD staff. We feel that the proposed zoning is not.
Speaker 1: In context with our neighborhood.
Speaker 0: As I mentioned, there tends to be buffers.
Speaker 1: Between.
Speaker 0: The high density, five.
Speaker 1: Or eight storey development further.
Speaker 7: North on university.
Speaker 0: Going down the three stories and ultimately the single family housing. This project does not provide that. In fact, the mass of this building.
Speaker 1: Even though it.
Speaker 0: Complies with the protected district ordinance, is simply out of context. There is no building in our neighborhood anywhere close to size. This building.
Speaker 1: Could be.
Speaker 0: Contextual.
Speaker 7: And Cherry Creek.
Speaker 5: North.
Speaker 0: Is probably contextual and low where there are block long buildings of five storeys.
Speaker 1: It simply doesn't work in our neighborhood. One comment from.
Speaker 0: Staff earlier report. It seems that assemblies.
Speaker 7: Have properties.
Speaker 0: You know, make it development happen. There was a project in the block north at 2350 South University. That is also what was on five stories. That project was built last year.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 0: It's on a 50 foot lot. It happens to be residential only they were in fact only able to grow the four stories to provide the right required parking.
Speaker 1: So in many ways.
Speaker 0: We feel that this is we have a good history in our.
Speaker 1: Neighborhood of being responsible and attentive to.
Speaker 0: The city plans. But this one.
Speaker 1: Simply doesn't work. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cashen. Jake Norris.
Speaker 0: Good evening, council members.
Speaker 4: My name is Jake Norris. I'm a resident of Denver. I'm here tonight to simply point out the unpredictability of this zoning measure. People make life changing decisions based on how these areas are zoned. I personally purchased our current home a year ago on the 2400 block of South Columbia Pine. Two blocks east of University Boulevard. We love Denver and needed a neighborhood that was close to downtown, but one that was safe for our one and three year old little boys. Prior to purchasing our home, we conducted extensive research and due diligence on the location. We love University Park and were thrilled when we found a home on a quiet street in the neighborhood that met our needs with our little one safety in mind. We did have concerns about the proximity of the home to the congestion on University Boulevard, but after a review of the zoning, we decided to move forward with the purchase. When we were looking at our home, I even commented that if the 2400 South University block wasn't anything higher, I wouldn't buy the home due to the added congestion it would cause. Our decision to buy our home was made based on good faith of the 2010 MDX three rezoning that had just recently occurred. This is why I was shocked when I heard it was potentially being zoned even higher with larger capacity situation I find myself in is one of confusion on this whole issue of predictability. The simple question I think everyone here shares is this If we cannot rely on zoning as a predictable land use guide, then what is the purpose of zoning? To begin with, please vote no on this unnecessary rezoning. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Norris. David Foster. And as he is coming up, I'm going to call Jennifer Isbell, Sekou and Carlene Evan. Off to the front pew, please.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam President. Members of Denver City Council. My name is David Foster. Address 360, South Garfield. I'm a local land use attorney. I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. I have a I'm here representing a number of neighbors. There's a letter that is in your packet that Mr. Smart had sent out in his first comments. My letter is buried in the back. I asked to be in front, but I guess I'm in the back. But if you don't mind making reference to that letter on occasion, I'm going to point out a few issues that I'd like to relay this evening. And it is also important to recognize that as many of the comments are being made, it is clear that there has been tremendous leadership in this Council district for a number of years, resulting in a number of wonderful projects. It just so happens that tonight I'm here asking you to think twice about approving the rezoning for this particular site. And I do so because there are a number of things that, as a land use attorney, I, I do take very seriously. And one of those is the notion of changed conditions and changed circumstances, which is one of the legal criteria upon which we're able to rezone property. And in many cases, the cases that come before you. In fact, the case that was right before us tonight, you were rezoning APD that was 30 years old. Clearly, there were change conditions that warranted rezoning, a 30 year old beauty. But in this particular instance, I can't help but think that somewhere along the line we've missed the last four years. And let me give you a number of those examples and reasons why I'm concerned about whether or not this applicant can meet this important criteria in the applicant's own application. And it's the last two pages of my letter and I have included it for your ready reference. Exhibit B identifies the description of justifying circumstances. And of course we need to find change or changing circumstances. These are change or changing circumstances. These aren't anticipated conditions or circumstances. Quite frankly, when many of you rezoning the city back in 2010 and many of you re zoned properties, this property and others, you anticipated certain things to happen along this corridor. Those have happened. Development has come to South University. Those are change conditions. Those are now anticipated conditions. You re zoned it and they came and they built and they developed. So this first line that I've highlighted is the numerous developments within the area and the introduction of RTD light rail system with stations nearby. Well, folks, the station opened up in 2006. I don't really view that as a change condition which would warrant this particular rezoning. The next line. Thus, one of the change conditions that justify this map amendment is the adoption of the new zoning code by the city and county of Denver in June of 2010. Right. This property was re zoned in 2010 meeting that particular changed circumstance. The third line, possibly the most significant of the change conditions, is the adoption of the University Park Small Area Plan by City Council in 2008. Right. That was adopted in 2008. And it provided the rationale for where University Park was in their support of the 2010 Map Amendment. These things all predated the 2010 rezoning. And the fact that we're even talking tonight about a B-2 and what can happen with the B-2 is entirely irrelevant because this property and I only two, it was rezoning in 2010 to its existing zoned district. And so we need to focus on what's happened since 2010 and what change conditions have occurred. Not all of the changed conditions that have been alluded to today, again, were anticipated when this site was zoned in 2010. Mr. Gorelick got up. And by the way, I have a huge amount of respect for Mr. Gorelick, as I'm sure you all do. He said at that point the owners didn't own all the property in 2010 and he said, quote, No one, no one to step up and lobby for it. Well, these property owners have owned the property for nearly 40 years. They could have stepped up in 2010 and lobbied for themselves. Look, look on page three of the staff report, page three of the staff report, the entire property north of this particular site was regent, was redound to our ex-wife. That wasn't a single ownership. Those were multiple ownerships. What what why is there some notion that you need to have a single ownership in order to rezone a whole block of property? That's. It's false. It's a red herring. You don't need to have one ownership controlling the entire block in order to rezone. By the way, if that is a change condition, if this council finds that aggregating property is a changed condition, I'm going to go buy some property. I'm going to go aggregate property because that will be the change condition that will warrant a rezoning. So that's preposterous. We know that's preposterous. Councilman Shepard had referenced my favorite book as a young child as well, The Giving Tree. And I've thought about the Giving Tree a lot over the years. And one of the things that gives me great pause with the giving tree is whether or not the boy was worthy to receive all of the things that he got from the tree. And I think that tonight you sitting as a city council need to think about whether or not this honor is worthy. Have they been involved with the site.
Speaker 1: After your time or was.
Speaker 4: That the 6.
Speaker 1: Minutes? That was 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I hope that you will see fit. Not Theresa on the site tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Foster. Jennifer Isbell. And you also have 6 minutes. Okay. Thank you. My name is Jennifer Isbell. I am a native of Denver. I have been in the neighborhood for 17 years, and I live in the 2400 block of South Fillmore. I am a former zoning chair in the neighborhood. I am a citizen. I am an architect. And I am an advocate for my neighborhood. For the future of University Park. The major corridors that define the edges of our neighborhoods are opportunities for elegant, durable and sensitive transitions between busy major thoroughfares and mostly quiet urban neighborhoods, which is what we are most of the time. In University Park, we have been incredibly fortunate to have you as our next door neighbor to the west, this long standing institution with its multitude of sophisticated buildings, new and historic set much of the town. As one passes through the west boundary of the neighborhood, the attention to scale as we face and embrace to you and the rest of the neighborhood is imperative. Scale. This is the issue that I find the most important about what we are talking about tonight. We have already witnessed the recent completion of the building on the southeast corner of Evans and University, dwarfing the business school and the formal pedestrian entrance on the corner. We continue to be challenged as we seek a more pedestrian friendly environment for a mixed population of old people, kids.
Speaker 4: Dogs.
Speaker 1: Strollers and students who are looking at their.
Speaker 0: Phones all the time.
Speaker 1: This is really, really important. And University Boulevard is not pedestrian friendly, as we all know, and it's going to be less pedestrian friendly with more traffic. Scale is the most important aspect of any project. We are not opposed to redevelopment. We eagerly welcome something for this area that would provide much needed commercial, social and community outlets along a busy university boulevard. We are seeking a scale of buildings that will allow this to happen. However, an entire block of five or more storeys fronting a narrow, busy corridor with two story residents just behind, is neither respecting nor considering this issue of scale. Taller buildings come with winds, they restrict light, and they give license in a way. This is, in some ways for me, one of the most important things. They give license for the traffic to move faster. And I you know, I don't know what we do about this because we have a major, major thoroughfare through our neighborhood. But we have a problem with a lack of pedestrian life, especially on the side we live on. And then we've got all these students and all these people who are trying to come and go and it is not easy or safe. The scale of this project would not encourage a walkable world and denies the documented desire of the neighborhood over many years to enhance the built environment for the purpose of community and commerce within an appropriate scale. What we do now will affect the character of this area for a very long time and set a precedent that must reflect the desires of the collective university park. The health and future of this historic neighborhood is at stake. The longevity of any project goes way beyond the present moment of pressure to develop property, often more in favor of the investors all over this city and state. We have witnessed projects that have taken liberties officials who have given liberties and communities that have suffered the long term consequences. We are poised and privileged. We are very privileged to be able to consider what we want at this moment in an economy that is being lifted up here and there enough to give us this opportunity. We are privileged to consider what would best suit the neighborhood for the long term. Successful business ventures on ground level are dependent on the desirability of the streetscape. The streetscape is dependent on the scale in every direction, scale in every direction. And this is the scale that we start with right here. You know, this project will set the stage for the continued development of this corridor, no matter the nuances and manipulation in the treatment of the facade. The overall massing of this project remains daunting as it stretches most of the.
Speaker 0: Entire city block.
Speaker 1: It is not too late to embrace what might really. Do good for all parties involved and might best suit this neighborhood. I. I respectfully and humbly ask that you consider this.
Speaker 0: Project.
Speaker 1: For three stories and a lesser density, and and think twice about how a project of this magnitude is going to affect the neighborhood, the future of the neighborhood, the traffic in the neighborhood and public community and private life in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Bell. Sekou.
Speaker 8: Yes, Chairman CQ Blackstar to move this. I really can't add any more to the argument for residents or for the owners. But we're going to nip this thing in the bud and just give you the overview. I'm a former student. Do. You give me this and it's all like popcorn, Jack. Yes. And when I was there, I had no regard.
Speaker 1: Was Ms.. Mr.. I could address that.
Speaker 0: When I was.
Speaker 8: There. I had no regard for the neighborhood. I didn't get invited. Probably many party was on. And not only that, but it was a natural attraction. We was competing with Boulder to see who was going to be the party school. You understand me? Now we got we free.
Speaker 0: Open, go.
Speaker 8: Marijuana, go. You give me this jack attraction. You got to worry about traffic coming in from CSU, Boulder, Metro, Bridges, all of that, all that. Now, why would you want to do that to them? Come on, master. What is it? That. That thing is crazy? That's crazy, man. What you got going on now? Come on, y'all. And then we're going to have to pay for this whole police, this thing. Now, you look at the cost. It's going to cost. All right, we got to police this thing. Folks are going to be potty trained, even got to weekend. Why it? And then you got another one coming up just around the block. Goes outside the city and can in Denver and Inglewood is coming up. Man, do you know what you doing here? You got to be crazy. We all up in the college, we know how this thing going to work. So come on, y'all. Give the neighborhood folk a break. Now I'm down. Put development to but has got to be planned and congruent and make some common sense. Man, this does not make no sense fast. Or is it is and it's on. Now, this is my concern. Now's the time to step up. We need five votes. The people need five vote. That's it. Let them win one and then make them develop to go back and come back with this real. SUSAN Come on.
Speaker 1: Paul Come on, now.
Speaker 8: Come on. ORTEGA Oh, come on, come on, come on.
Speaker 1: Let's say.
Speaker 8: Hey, we got to give them five, five to make them make we have some faith in government, man, and give them something tonight to have a reason to vote for y'all. Otherwise, what are we talking about here? What are we talking about here? I mean, come on, y'all. So I'm a close with this list. Any time you have a develop a new attorney. And I was sitting here when it happened and we're talking about community. I mean, the planning office here and there was a person that from the planning office wasn't here to give the report. So Bob gave the report for them. Come on, man has a conflict of interest. You can't have him coming to begin report for the planning committee that's in the city. He's not part of that, so he's in bed with it. So we get a90 vote. Come on, man, this is so corrupt. Uranus's, are you talking about it? So you the last line of defense, all this mess.
Speaker 1: It's just like you take your set.
Speaker 8: Take.
Speaker 1: Just take your seat. Oh, Karlene, even if. Good evening, Councilman and Councilwoman. My name is Carlene. Even if I live at 2465 South Jackson Street. I have lived in Observatory Park for 18 years. I'm here to simply state my own experience with the process surrounding the proposed development of 2400 block of South University. Truthfully, I have never been a fan of density. So when I heard about this project, I was suspicious. But I tried to be fair and circumspect, and I made a point to do my own research as I listened intently to all parties. It's fair to say that I have ended up with more questions than answers because the issue revealed itself to me to be more complicated than just a big building. I've had to become reeducated about certain aspects of zoning, the vision of the city, and what residents really want, which frankly runs the gamut of choices. I need to recognize and thank the members of PCC and the Josephine Street community for inviting me into their process and giving me an opportunity to serve the neighborhood as a delegate to the ANC. Their endless investment of time and zoning and historic preservation and other matters is often thankless, divisive, and yet very important. But in that same vein, I feel it's also fair to recognize and thank architect Chris Shears and certain members of his team, such as Shawn Maley, for having a completely open door policy. I contacted them after the planning board meeting and I have basically pummeled them with endless questions about topics, many of which have been covered here tonight. And people who know me know that I'm never brief and they've answered every question. They responded to every call, they have responded to every email and extended an open invitation to any person in the neighborhood to directly answer questions or meet in their offices. Mr. Rogers offered to meet with a small group of us to just answer a lot of our questions. And we were there for like 4 hours and we pretty much dissected every idea and concept that they had. I have to say that this responsiveness on the part of a developer was truly new and surprising to me. So there's still many questions to be answered and with many problems to solve. And the residents here tonight have many salient points to make. And I recognize that and I sympathize with that. But my involvement with PCC, together with interactions with Mr. Shears and his team, as well as the passionate efforts of the Josephine Street neighbors, actually give me hope that somehow this blighted piece of land that everyone agrees must be improved in some way might represent a pathway for all parties to get something good out of it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Seven, and thank you for ending it on such a civil note. I want except for our notable and familiar exception. I want to thank all of you for a very civil and respectful conversation. I know there are disagreements, but very, very civil and respectful hearing. I appreciate that. I'm going to open it for questions by council. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. In the chamber this evening, we have the new director of Community Planning and Development, Fred Buchanan Dumont, coming forward. Read an answer, a few questions, really more philosophical by what some of my neighbors have stated. And I think Jake North raised the question about predictability in terms of zoning and one cannot rely on it. Would you mind addressing that? Is the planning director? Sure. The zoning on this site and in every site, we based on our on our plans, obviously, but things do change and our zoning responds to that. And with this particular area, it's all an area of stability, a defined reinvestment area also. And areas of stability are not defined to never change. And the zoning does change and they respond to our zoning classifications, respond to that change. And in this situation, developers come forward with a proposal that this was the original proposal predates my time with the city. But at a at a higher height than they're currently proposing. I believe it was eight stories. And our staff communicated at that time that we did not see plan support for an eight story solution. And then they went away and came back and asked about five storeys. And that's when our staff reviewed that, looked at the plan recommendations and thought that we could we could support that. That five storey height change conditions came up again, a great deal tonight. Would you mind addressing that issue specifically to. And to what David Foster said. Sure. You know, I I actually think to answer that question, ask our city attorney who's here to define that, because I don't know that I want to be the person arguing with David Foster, who's a land use attorney, and, and I am not one , so that I really.
Speaker 1: Do think that. Mr. RODWELL Yeah, I, there was a question addressed to you and maybe perhaps we'll ask Brad or, or Councilman Brown.
Speaker 4: And I would ask we have attorneys from our office who are staffing this application, so I may defer to them. But if you repeat your question, please. Sure. This is about the issue pertaining to change conditions.
Speaker 1: Hello, Laurie Strand, City Attorney's Office. I'll I'll read the criteria and then we're talking about so everybody knows what we're referring to. So the criterion says that one of the following circumstances must be found to exist. And the one that he's pointing to is the one that says the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. And I would just stress this has changed or is changing to such a degree. There's no definition in the code for what this means. It's really up to you, the council council members, to determine if you find, as staff has found, that there have been changed conditions. I believe that Deja pointed to the 2008 university plan, and in that plan it identified certain visions for this property. And it's also has pointed out that in 2010 you all looked at the appropriate zoning and a number of different districts were considered at that time. And finally honing in on the three storey district now. But as was pointed out previously, you know, one district doesn't exclude out any other potential districts. And at that time, there's a number of districts that were looked to. So I think in kind of looking at what was said in 2008, staff considered a number of districts landed on one, but not to the exclusion of others. So staff has found now that the conditions that were recognized in 2008 do in fact justify the now requested five storey district. So I'm not sure if that answers your questions, but there's not a straight defined term. Okay.
Speaker 4: Did Brad leave Brad? Her name was Karlene and she says she was never has been a fan of density. Could you tell us the philosophical approach to density in this city? Because this is key, I believe, to what you and the department will be looking at. Sure. Well, it's it's I'll try to be as concise as I can, because that's a very big question, obviously. But I think it our entire blueprint, Denver, which I think one of the genius moves in Blueprint Denver was to describe areas of change, air stability, enhanced transit corridors and talk about those definitions and gradations of where we were, where we were to direct density. And one of the speakers I think accurately said that if we and we heard a lot this evening about traffic and traffic impacts to the neighborhood, very real impacts. Absolutely. And a challenge for our entire city. And I think one of the frustrations for neighborhoods is that as we introduce density into in and around enhanced transit corners, particularly corridors that are not very enhanced yet, it adds burdens to those neighborhoods. And but the fact of the matter is, transit and density don't ratchet up at exactly the same rate. That's the reality of that. I was at Councilwoman Sussman district doing a presentation a couple of weeks ago and one of the RTD board members there. And we talked about that. And it is a it is a pain point as to because transportation doesn't ratchet up and improve and increase, it's it's demand based. And so the demand has to be there for the density to come. It is a is a similar situation and a frustration to the neighbors in Councilwoman Robb's district around Cherry Creek and First Avenue, where we we don't have today the kind of transit we'd like to have or will have, I suspect. Yet the density is coming, the market is there, and so we're planning for it. Our plans describe University and Evans, for that matter, both as enhance transit corridors. And we do that for what I believe is a solid reason around and and direct density to around those areas. It's why we had the zoning that the university and Evan's that we had it's why you see the additional. In all height along university, both north and south of this site. And it really has to do with without density. And here's the big picture. And I very much appreciate everything the neighbors have said. This is this is their neighborhood and this is about change. And this is hard, hard change and a hard conversation. But transportation or a and or more simplified in this situation, mixed use projects that allow us to create places where folks can live and work and study and shop and dine in a walkable neighborhood. That's what this creates. That's what this creates. And that, in fact, is what will, in the long run, reduce traffic. Reduce traffic. You're right. Fewer people getting into their cars, having to drive somewhere else in the places where the density should go. Right. Thank you, Brad. I have other questions, but I think we have a list, so I'd like to yield to my colleagues. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for Ms. asks if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. So was there ever a regulating plan discussed as part of this development? No.
Speaker 1: Okay. My other question for you.
Speaker 5: Are there city plans that call for widening of university where the community described this bottlenecks on this particular block?
Speaker 7: There are not currently plans calling for widening. I don't believe that question is assessed during the site development plan. I will say that in discussions throughout the city, our director of transportation and others, our planners have been out in the community, are getting this question. It is if you are going to put density along these corridors, if it's not going to be in our neighborhood because we don't want it in the middle of the neighborhood and we want to put it in the corridor, what will you do about the streets? That's become a very forward front and center question for our director of transportation. And I know that they're thinking very seriously about how changes to the way we use streets will help affect and facilitate increased density, inappropriate places. So that mismatch that Brad has talked about in terms of the streets, they're not growing. They're not getting getting bigger just because we get more density right now. There is change in the wings talking about how we facilitate more alternatives for transportation on our streets to better use them and to make them more pedestrian friendly and more bike friendly and more vehicle friendly.
Speaker 5: So I'd like to now switch over to the developer and ask that same question. So I don't know who the appropriate person from your group would be, but I'd like someone that is familiar with all the details to be able to answer whether or not you expect that the Street will be widened as a result of this particular project if this density were to be approved.
Speaker 4: I could defer. Sean Maley If I need to defer, I will. But the question on will, do we expect the street to be widened to accommodate any transportation? I don't know if we expect it, but we expect to consider that very thoroughly with city traffic engineering and the site plan. One of the main things that we're thinking about is left southbound access and I think logically our traffic engineer has looked at two areas where that could occur. One in the Mid-Block section where we have an access point off of university. Another on Harvard, which would be the south most street. To achieve that, I believe you would require that some land come from the development to accommodate that. Now how that ultimately unfolds is in the site development plan process. I can't say that that we're expecting that, but we expect to thoroughly discuss that.
Speaker 5: Okay. So since I have you there, I have a couple of other questions that if you can't answer, I'd like someone else to. So can you tell me how many parking spaces are being proposed for the commercial? I heard how many are proposed for.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 5: Residential, but I didn't hear that on the commercial.
Speaker 4: Certainly I think we're parking at four per thousand, which would be 110 or 112 spaces for the commercial general retail parking requirement, if I'm correct, is 1.875 per thousand and a restaurant would be 3.754 thousand. So our aggregate for 4000 is well above the retail parking code requirement.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then what is the average size of the units that are being proposed?
Speaker 4: That I'm going to defer to the architect, if that's okay.
Speaker 5: And and when I say size, I'm also asking. Number of bedrooms.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 5: Per unit. So are they all proposed to be just one bedrooms or are they you're expecting two bedroom units. Can you just give me an idea of sort of the average size and number of bedrooms?
Speaker 0: Well, this is all still preliminary because the program continues to change. But what we're anticipating now is about 264 bedrooms for those 230 to 240 residences. I don't have the exact mix of ones to choose, but it's predominantly one bedroom units and we're proposing 1.4 spaces per unit, which. Essentially is that it accommodates one space per patient. That's a real.
Speaker 5: Oh, my my last question is, can you provide an idea of what the price point would be? Are these expected to be student housing units or the expected to be residential apartments? Are they expected to be condos? Help me understand what.
Speaker 0: Yes, these will be rental apartments. That's currently where the market is. A strong market is. I really can't I don't know what the rental rates will be. Usually those are are expressed is is a dollar 75 or $2 or $2.50 a square foot. And I believe that this project is probably destined to be very similar to the Observatory Place Project, which is on the south east corner of University Avenue. So it's comparable in quality and comparable in price point to that project.
Speaker 5: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have right now. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Robb Kushner. She might as well troop right back there. First of all, I want to say this was very good testimony tonight. It was very much to the point of what we should think about with rezoning. And boy, you gave us a lot to think about. My questions may not seem as on topic, but I have a motive behind them. We already talked that the parking is really greater than what's required. When I think of what we're talking about in our new Cherry Creek zoning. Four spaces per thousand foot of retail is pretty high. So I have some questions. So you're putting a lot of that parking underground that will make that retail possible. Can you really? Sounds like a silly question, but I want to make sure this project can really happen because someone said it's a high quality project. Can can you really maintain grass and trees on top of that, the way you've sort of laid it out?
Speaker 0: Well, I think what we're proposing is that there would be landscaped terraces. And of course, at this stage in the project, you're not right, you're not being specific. But it is our developer's desire to create a nice transition between the building and the adjacent neighborhood. So for the specific kinds of landscaping is yet to be determined. But once again, we intend to work with the neighborhood to determine, you know, what what happens there.
Speaker 1: So, so and I want to be sure this Councilwoman Ortega referred to a regulated plan. Sometimes it's tempting to like very specific plans and try to ensure that and zoning. But is this project really going to happen? I mean, if you get through this rezoning, what are you thinking of for a timeline or what is if you can speak for the owner?
Speaker 0: Well, we've been told that if the zoning is successful, that they want to move ahead very quickly. They want this is sort of a window on the market that they want to have.
Speaker 1: Okay. So now I'm want to think about the parking under this proposed zoning versus parking under the current zoning gimmicks. Sorry, how deep is that lot between the alley and university?
Speaker 0: It's 150 feet deep.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's pretty deep. So it would be possible to do a three storey office, perhaps there under the current zoning with parking behind it?
Speaker 0: That that's correct.
Speaker 1: Parking at 2.5 per thousand or something.
Speaker 0: They would probably need to be higher than that for office uses. I would imagine 4000 would be necessary on that particular property.
Speaker 1: 4000 for office?
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 1: And there would be room to do that, that many spaces at surface, I think.
Speaker 0: I think you'd have to go below grade. You could not accommodate that parking above excuse me, above grade. And there is a requirement that there be retail on the street. So you'd have most likely retail parking behind it, as we're suggesting. And then there's no levels of office above that parking below grade it.
Speaker 1: If it were three stories with with residential above the retail, you need fewer spaces. Could you do that without going underground?
Speaker 0: That's no. No, I'm certain that we could.
Speaker 1: Could. Can you afford to go underground at only three stories?
Speaker 0: I think most. Any real estate. A developer familiar with these kinds of projects would say no.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think that's that's it for me right now. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to call Shamali up on the way. You know, I think of rezonings in the city is that we are we're writing a check to the developer. We're giving them something in the city, and we expect something back. And we heard a little bit about what we get back in terms of, you know, retail housing. You know, I love wordplay, but I, I guess from the developer's perspective, what have you given back to this community as far as concessions and things like that? And if you can equate that, this may be tough, if you can equate that to a dollar amount as well, that would be helpful.
Speaker 4: Okay. In terms of what we have, I guess, given or worked with the neighborhood on, you know, I'd say the first one is time. We have not tried to ram this thing through. It's our first meeting with you. PCC was in March of 2013. It's May of 14, so about 14 months and. And time is money. I cannot put a dollar figure on that. But we've spent an enormous amount of time working with folks, again, trying to carry forward a very genuine spirit of outreach and collaboration. As Brad and Deirdre, I believe, mentioned, originally we had sought to do more height on the south corner of the rezoning district. We utilized was Cmac site, but because we are adjacent to protected zoning, the single unit zoning, you cannot exceed 75 feet no matter what. So we because residential floor to floor height is more compact than, say, office, where you have taller floors. You could do a seven storey residential building on that corner under ax8, which is capped at 75 feet. We really liked seven storeys capped at 75 feet at the south corner of that site, stepping down to five. We did not carry that application forward for a number of reasons. First off, the neighborhood did not welcome it, which we respected. Secondly, as I kind of mentioned in my testimony, it wasn't enumerated specifically in the plan. So we knew that that would be a tougher ask. So we opted not to pursue that parking. Going underground comes at an extreme cost. I don't proforma for a living, so I don't know that cost. I believe one or two people in testimony with construction and architectural experience cited some of those numbers. But it's very expensive to conceal that parking, and we thought that was the right thing to do because it carried out the pedestrian nature of the plan. Additionally, we're building more parking than required to buy code. Again, that parking comes at a dollar figure, so you can begin to see the growing value of of kind of the this project. And then finally, I think what we're seeking to give back knowing parishioners pretty well before this project, knowing him very, very well. Now I know the the way that he approaches a project and and while we're at a concept level now, if we proceed past zoning will begin with design, development and and the attention that will be given to that alley. We've often joked that the alley is going to look nicer than the front of the block. It's going to be a four sided, beautiful building. But I guess what I'm saying is that we're really going to try to do something phenomenal. On that alley side, you have requirements with the city's protected districts. I think what the architects are seeking to do is is do that and then go beyond that to create something that's truly remarkable. So I may have left a few things off, but hopefully that addresses your question.
Speaker 3: He didn't give me a dollar amount, but I understand. Let me ask you a question real quick about the setbacks and the setbacks that you did in the alley. There's been some conversation here about the traffic bottlenecking on the front side of the building. With those setbacks and setbacks, is there any opportunity I mean, is there any opportunity to do something on the front of the building at that point? Are you guys constrained now? Because you've you've made those concessions on the back end.
Speaker 4: No, I mean, we are we cannot break the protected district regulations on the alley. But what happens on the front side is a matter for the site plan development. And if the city were to require something there be done, it would be a requirement for us to get our approval of the site plan. So. So, you know. No, I think that is that is the next really important item that we will be addressing, not the one item, but one of the really important items that we'll be addressing with the city's traffic engineers taking our traffic study to the next level. But there is the ability to make requirements there.
Speaker 3: Last question. What assurances does the neighborhood neighborhood group and folks in this room, folks watching have that once you get the rezoning, number one, the project, the project is going to get done. Number two, that they will have a voice in the development of this project.
Speaker 4: You know, I think are all we can really go on at this point is our pride and our reputations and our word. And we've stated to UPC members, their president and two members of their border executive committee that we would happily involve them in meetings with regards to where site access comes from. There's a bit of a decision to you do. The second point of access off of the alley or Harvard. We could do either. There are impacts two ways on that, but it's one that we really look forward to working with the neighborhood on. So even if it's involving them in a meeting with the city traffic engineers, we're open to do that. We've actually made some good friendships and relationships in the last few months and we look forward to continuing to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Councilman. Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I'm trying to think who asked this question? Councilwoman Robb kind of zeroed in on it with respect to the the the the parking and the dilemmas associated with three stories versus five stories. You know, there's in well, in a lot of things, you often face tradeoffs between competing values. And somebody wisely said the only thing people hate more than sprawl is density. And so we kind of are facing that dilemma here. So I kind of don't want to ask the development team, I don't know, maybe Brad is the right person to ask Brad. I have not seen three story projects with underground parking. Is that it's just an impression on my part. I mean, is that does that reflect the economics of of underground parking? Because one of the things that the neighbors have talked about is they want something that's more walkable. They want something that is more pedestrian friendly. And surface parking lots are the opposite of that. So is it possible to get underground parking in a three story project? Well, I think that parking becomes a continuum on typically three or four or five story projects, which are all stick built wood frame projects usually built with a first level, with a concrete podium of some sort of post tension slab, which serves to get the the building code separation between the retail use and whatever else is on top, whether it's office or residential, the fire separation oftentimes the on of over a three story project you would probably see retail to the front, retail serving parking right behind it since it's particularly on 150 foot depth plot, the retail depth typically 60 or 70 feet from the street phase. Typically, I don't know what's planned specifically here for that, but typically which would allow you not to do a double loaded row of parking behind four, 25,000 square feet? You wouldn't have enough parking, I wouldn't think, along one level. So you would have to either go up or down with the parking. If you go down, it's in that at first level, below grade is typically at $20,000 plus or minus per space cost if you go down an additional level. It gets more expensive. And if you go down a third level, more expensive than that. That's why often you'll see on these three and four story projects, they call them wrap projects where they put the less expensive above grade structured parking and then wrap the residential around it. I'm trying to think of I haven't seen a three story one three story projects with that. I have seen four story projects I know that have done typically work right behind and then maybe one level below that. I'm trying to think of any three story projects. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm not familiar with any three story projects that do of use below grade parking. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any right now. No, thank you. That's just an authentication of the answers that Councilman Rob was getting.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brown, would you like to go last with your questions? I see, councilman. Woman Sheppard has also logged in. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you, Deirdre. I don't know how easy it would be for you to find this slide again, but I know Councilman Ortega asked about a regulating plan. And this the the protected zone district kind of provides what protections to the neighborhood that a regulating plan could accomplish elsewhere, is my understanding. But I was wondering, I think you went through that slide pretty quick. If you could just talk again really briefly about the protections provided to the single unit on the east side because of the protected zone district restrictions?
Speaker 7: Are you talking about the the building envelope, the rendering of the concrete? Okay. So specifically at 27 feet, the building would step back 20 feet. And then when the building gets up to 51 feet, it steps back another 15. So for a total of 35 from the property line. So in total and that's just this is just a really generic representation of what can happen. But those step setbacks occur the higher the higher the building goes. And so in this five story district, those are the two step acts that would occur in whatever form they decide to do. They could bring the entire building back 35 feet all at once and not do those two step acts. But, you know, presently, I think in some of their initial renderings, there's something remotely similar.
Speaker 1: The alley is running north, south, and this.
Speaker 7: Runs north south. So that's an additional 18 feet.
Speaker 1: Is it drawn to scale in this picture? Roughly, yeah, because I can I can barely even see it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's kind of on the top.
Speaker 1: But I mean, would you say that that accomplishes what a regular regulating plan accomplishes or would you describe it differently?
Speaker 7: I say. Well, actually, regulating plan is a it's it's a plan that's used in a different context, generally speaking, a much more specific context and has been identified in the code before for master plan context, where you have a really broad zoning for a site and then you want to get into more detail. And without a pudi, it's a regulating plan and it's a tool that I know. Councilman Rob's from Tourism Cherry Creek. It's not really been used in a lot of places, so.
Speaker 1: Okay. I just wanted to get, you know, a better rendering of what those protections look like in space, even though we know the project won't look like. Right.
Speaker 7: And that that's fine. As close as we can get generically.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. I have a couple of questions actually for you. I think it was it's we heard a lot about predictability and certainly we were keeping faith with neighbors is important to all of us. I think it was masterful who said that the neighborhood plan, not the zoning, but the neighborhood plan, talked about moderate density and 3 to 5 storey buildings. Is that correct? That is correct. So the neighborhood plan that was done by neighbors in what, year 2008? Oh, in 2008, did did anticipate 3 to 5 storey buildings in this location.
Speaker 7: In this location.
Speaker 1: In this location. Okay. That was my one check I wanted to make. And then I think it was Ms.. Schmidt that asked about the or what expressed what I thought was concern about the rescheduling of this. That was done for the neighbors, wasn't it, in order to give them an opportunity?
Speaker 7: Exactly. So during the petition to protest, this is not a common thing. Council sees this fairly rarely. I think the last time I saw it was six years ago. So every one of them, we have to kind of reorder what we have to do. And we do have very specific instructions for this. And so what staff does to help out ensure that the community who you know, they're not looking at the code every day that they have the right guidance. We provide a map of a it's either a 200 foot buffer around the subject property or includes the subject property. And a clearly here the subject property. The applicant likely wouldn't sign their petition of protest. So you look at the 200 foot buffer outside. So they were provided a map that includes information about all the properties within that buffer zone and it includes a gross square footage of that area. And the requirement is that all land area within that 200 foot buffer is included and that includes public rights of way. The second piece of information that was provided to the neighborhood is a list of all the parcels, all of the owners within that 200 foot, because they have to put the petition together that has all the names as they are of record, the assessor's office. And then people have to sign it of record so they have as much information as we can give them. And that's the kind of felt that we're able to provide during the preparation of their petition. They were asking questions back and forth and I was doing my best to answer them in one particular question on that. That spreadsheet I had totaled up the amount of land area that was within the parcels, but did not realize at the time that it didn't connect with the gross square footage. And so in one of the questions that they sent via email, it was, is the math correct here? Is this the right calculation? The math was correct. They had looked at how many signatures they would need to write to for the owners of 20% of the land owners of the segment, of the 20% of the land within that 200 foot buffer. They the math was correct, but the basis of the calculation was incorrect. It was just the personal area without the right of way. When we did the calculation, they turn in their petition on time, and this was based on an originally scheduled April 28th hearing. The petition did not meet the 20% recall. Diamond. I let them know that. They said, What do you mean? Because their understanding was that they had collected enough. So we reevaluated that again. And I realized that the basis of calculation had been provided to them, and it was an incorrect answer. So while all effort was made to give them the right information that concerned us, that we wanted to make sure the neighbors had the opportunity to actually reflect their intent to get enough signatures. And they, in fact, did that by us being able to extend the time. Councilman Brown did choose to extend the time to allow the neighbors that that opportunity. You know, it's a lot of detail. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I just wanted I just wanted to let people know that we extended the deadline and and it would have been nice to have it have it on on good weather, but that we extended the deadline so the neighbors would have a chance to collect the amount of signatures that they wanted. And that's all my questions. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 4: A time lender. Lender Gil questioned your traffic study and I thought you might just want an opportunity to address some of her concerns. Sir, thank you. I think I wrote down the questions that Linda had. One having to do with the 2200 vehicles cited on university in the opening paragraph, 2200 vehicles cited in a later paragraph. And that's an unfortunate typo on my part. It should have been 2300 in the second paragraph. And so that was a mis on my part on that. And so I wasn't saying there's going to be no traffic out of the university, there will be some traffic out at university with this with this project. So that was one. The second one was had to do with the trip generation. So trip that she was she asked a question about there's a 236 units on how come there's not 236 trips leaving at all, leaving the site. Doesn't every every unit generate a trip? Well, I looked at the peak hour. We do this analysis, we look at the peak hour. Not every unit, not every person who lives in a unit, who drives a car, leaves that unit at that in that one hour. Some people don't work normal hours. Some people will go to work six or seven. Some got eight. So they could spread out. And in the way we do those calculations, there's a book that we use called the United Age Generation Manual or Industry Standard. It has trip generation rates that we use. The city recognizes that manual as the standard for doing traffic impact analysis. So we use that standard and that book and the rates in that book for that for that calculation. Does that answer the question? Is there any other so you want you stand by your study included the typo. I do stand by the study included in the table and I excluding the title, excluding the 5 million. I apologize for for missing that. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: QUESTION Thank you, Councilwoman Brown. Councilman Councilwoman Ortega, we we're going to. That's okay. Do you have another question?
Speaker 5: I have one last question for our city attorney, Mr. Broadwell, or I'm sorry I didn't get your name. One of the speakers had suggested that tonight what we should do is just approve the three story and not the requested five story for this rezoning.
Speaker 1: Which is.
Speaker 5: The correct. I'm trying to find the exact category, but I want you to help clarify that. Our role here tonight is either to vote for this or to vote against it. But we don't have the flexibility to say we think, you know, the three story is what we want. Therefore, that's what we're going to be voting on tonight. Can you just clarify that?
Speaker 1: You're correct. Tonight, you're taking action on the requested rezoning to Greeks five. So you'll approve it or you'll disapprove it. I would just note that the current zoning is three stories, so by virtue of denying it, there would be a three story zoned district there, which is what's there now. So you're correct.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Okay. Seeing no further questions, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for comments by counsel. Councilman Brown, would you like to go first?
Speaker 4: Not really, but I will.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 4: And thank you, Madam President. I would like to thank the University Park community for this chamber this evening. And I really want to thank you for managing your emotions. And I hope in the last minutes that we can continue to be civil as we discuss this issue. But thank you. And tonight, we're talking in a project about a project that is not only in my district, it's in my neighborhood. And Susanna, I have lived in University Park for 21 years. Our sons, Nick and Cody, attended University Park Elementary School. And as some of you know, I have been a strong supporter of Union University Park School for years. And during my ten plus years of service in this district, one thing has been constant. And that one thing is change. T-Rex, for example, the $1.7 billion highway and light rail construction project was huge, and I spent the first five years dealing with that project because it cut right through the heart of my district very close to where we live. Personally, I can look out of every window in our ranch home and see new homes. I can drive down South University, South Colorado Boulevard and see new commercial development in South University Boulevard. Certainly has changed with new condos and new apartments, the newest one being more than ten stories. The University of Denver is a jewel in our city, and it has added a variety of buildings, including the fabulous $67 million Newman Center located right across the street from the site that we are discussing tonight. Surprisingly and sadly, there were some people in University Park that did not want Newman's Center to be built. That's a shame. I'm glad it was built. It's a welcome addition not only to our neighborhood, but to our city. And changes it. Do you? Denver University will continue tomorrow. It's almost tomorrow. But tomorrow the EU will break ground on a new five story science, technology, engineering and Mathematics Building, which will be built on the southern part of the campus. I have received, like all my colleagues, numerous calls and emails on both sides of the issue. And regardless of my position tonight, one thing is clear I'm going to disappoint some long term friends and neighbors. That's the nature of serving as a member of city council. As many of my colleagues know, especially Councilwoman Robb, who represents Cherry Creek North. Redevelopment issues are often emotional and difficult, and we have seen that tonight. Years ago, I was a member of the University Park Plan Steering Committee and I attended more meetings than I can recall . I raised the issue many times that we needed to have a broad input not only just neighbors, but property and or property owners, but residents. But business owners, developers, architects, realtors, school officials to be included in developing that small area plan. More importantly, I was concerned about the geographical distribution that the people on that committee include. Our neighbors north of Bucknell University Park has more than 3500 households, and the plan would not be truly representative if only one small part of our neighborhood dominated the discussions. It was a difficult challenge, but I believe we achieved it. And after survival, several stop and go attempts. And with the help and input from many who spoke tonight, we crafted 126 page University Park, small area, neighborhood plan. The plan was approved unanimously by this Council on September the eighth, 2008. In fact, a majority of those council members who supported this plan. Seven of us are still on council. On Pages 115 and 116. This document, the plan supports, and I'm quoting moderate densities of 3 to 5 stories, close quote on this 2400 block of South University. Yes, we have heard the document also calls for activating and I'm quoting again, activating the ground floor with retail pedestrian entries, display windows and outdoor seating and mixed use area, close quote. And as you have seen by the architectural renderings, these neighborhood recommendations are precisely what the applicant team is proposing. We've heard tonight from Deirdre, and she relied in part on this neighborhood plan for recommending changes to zoning from GM x three the grx5. The final section of her report concludes, and I'm quoting Staff supports zone districts that move implementation of the University Park Plan forward. Close quotes a word about the applicant team. I am confident that they are committed to creating and building a first class project in Michael. And as a former president of the University Park Community Council, I am delighted that you spent time looking at some of those projects and gave an A-plus ratings. Chris, I worked with you and many of my colleagues have. You are an award winning in-fill architect. I know that you and your team have spent 12 months in neighborhood outreach meetings and work groups, design workshops in your office, and one on ones to address as many concerns as possible. Chris, you always remind us that neighbor heard input results in a better project for everyone. And as we have heard in response to the neighborhood, you have already completed a traffic study and a solar study and shared them with the neighbors well ahead of this project getting approved. There are many elements of this project that I welcome, especially the alley side design that incorporates setbacks, step backs, courtyards and landscaping. I would ask any of you to drive up and down the alleys from Evans to Yale. Look at the renderings that we have seen tonight. I am confident that this will be the best looking alley side design in Denver. I also welcome the 300 car underground parking. That is a positive feature that could not be financially justified with a three storey building. Let me be clear. The applicant did request an eight storeys zoning on the south portion of the site to take advantage of the slope on that land. I told them I would not support that. A story request. I am, however, supporting a five storey building which is clearly articulated in the plan created by the University Park neighbors in 2008. As my colleagues know well, we rezone parts of this city just about every Monday night, and I hope my colleagues will join me tonight and support this rezoning. I believe it is a reasonable, creative and a workable application that stays true and consistent to the guiding principles outlined in the neighborhood plan. I have no doubt it will greatly improve this block and all of University Park. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rezoning. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. Shoot. I forgot to ask one question during the testimony. I won't ask it now, but I do want to say that university is an enhanced transit corridor, and instead of the parking that is being proposed for this site, they could ask for a 25% reduction from the code . But that aside, I didn't make that point during the questions. I really gave a lot of thought to this rezoning and went back and forth, as I'm supposed to do, thinking about it over the weekend. And partially because I took home the letter from Rosemarie Stoffel that was not unlike a lot of the comments from neighbors, but I know Rosemary and a family member knows her and that family member grilled me also on how we zone in Denver and what is what we really talked a lot about tonight is so on topic, what's the justifying circumstance? And I kept asking myself that and I ask it during the hearing. I thought back over zoning as we've done, and I thought of one in particular since 2010, which was rezoning the golf property on Colorado Boulevard between 13th and 14th during the zoning code. Update, much like the property that we're talking about tonight, we went back and forth with the neighborhood between GMU three or GMU five. It was owned by DPS. Wasn't an easy decision to make. It ended up at the higher rather than the lower in this particular case. And lo and behold, a year or two later, we came back and rezone that to a campus district that allows even greater heights. And that was in conformance to the plan. And I said to myself, what was the change in circumstances in that in that situation? Well, it changed ownership. Now, that may not seem like a changed circumstance because as neighbors pointed out, properties change ownership all the time. And that shouldn't be the reason for rezoning in and of itself. But in this case, it very much changed the needs in the community, what could be offered to the community. So I thought about that. Then I came back to this and I said, What is changing here? And I heard the testimony about, well, everything that the report or the applicant said that has changed, already changed a bit before 2010. And I the you know, if we had spent a lot of time, we could have spent more time on questioning on this. But the way I read or would say that the developments that came in. Yes. Before 2010, I think you mentioned some of those. The neighborhood plan that they have, actually and you may not want to hear this actually increase the pace of change. The economy indeed is changing. The market is really changing. And I think what the market is doing that is so huge is it's demanding these walkable places that the neighborhood also wanted. You can't get retail on a first floor if you don't have a lot of people to shop there, whether it's office above or whether it's residential above. So and then and then I looked at that and I thought, well, just set changing circumstance by itself. And this is what I said. What wouldn't justify the rezoning? You you have to have the fact that the plan supports the height as well, which it does in this case. I would argue differently from David Foster. I think it's semantic. When this says moderate, they mean both three and five storeys. And from the viewpoint of District ten, this is moderate density. So it's like that. It's speaking also about District ten. I have also learned in all the rezoning that goes along there, which is why ask questions about three stories. Most a good part of East Colfax in my district is three story Main Street, not unlike three story mixed use, and it's really hard to get that three story development. People tend to do the one story and make it really high so they have enough parking for the retail and they don't do the residential that we want there. Four Eyes on the Street. Another experience I had in my district that I want to point out is that early on there was a rezoning in Cherry Creek East that had a legal protest. Lots of people turned out it was probably more emotional than tonight, which is Councilman Brown said was really based on sound argument, I think. And you guys really thought out your position and I turned it down. Councilman Councilman Brown didn't agree with me. He voted for it. Well, it's taken ten years to get any development there. Well, we got maybe half the site developed in the first five years after that. And a couple of years ago, we had another reason. We actually have had three rezoning on that project since. Now it is finally build out with a couple of duplexes. I think they are on on the corner. And neighbors have said to me, huh, that's not what we expected we would get. There wasn't the design. We're not sure we like it. We're not sure it's a quality project. And so one of the things you have to learn is if you have the changing circumstance and you have plan verification and you have a good developer, it's hard to say no way you can keep that bar on the corner that's not very popular or you can get some smaller 7-Eleven type development along there. You know, what is the consequence of not working with someone when the market is ready to do this? That brings is sort of pedestrian oriented development that I also wanted to speak a little bit about predictability because I did go through the plan today to look at that predictability argument because that was also a strong argument made by many of the emails that I got. And I found that the plan does talk a lot about predictability, but when I really looked at it, it was talking about predictability in the in the fact that it lacked form based standards. So in our old air code, you didn't know whether you were going to get a parking lot in the front or in the back or on the side in a B2, you didn't know if you were going in four stories or six stories. You didn't know how much transparency you would have on the first floor. And I found that much more of the predictability had to do with those pedestrian creating placemaking things that we wanted when we did the new code. So those are the thoughts that have gone through my head tonight as I consider this. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb and I don't see any other comments, so I think we are ready for the vote. Remember that we will need ten affirmative votes in order to pass this or or. No, no, no. That's not appropriate at the time. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Brown, i. I. Herndon. I can eat lemon pie. Lopez. Monteiro Nevett. I. Ortega, i. Rob. I. Shepherd Brooks. Madam President, I will. We have three people whose votes are hanging fire, as they used to say. Councilwoman Lemon. There you go. Madam Secretary. Close of voting announced the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The bill passes.
Speaker 2: Court. The Senate, for one.
Speaker 1: On Monday, May 19th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 306, designating 3241 Law Boulevard, the Beth Eden Baptist Church as a structure for preservation, saying no other business for this body. This meeting is adjourned. Church. Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 0: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 1: You are watching Denver eight TV.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 2420-2490 S. University Boulevard from G-MX-3 (General Urban Mixed Use Three Story) to G-RX-5 (General Urban Residential Mixed Use Five Story) in Council District 6. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approve the rezoning of 2420-2490 S. University Boulevard from G-MX-3 (General Urban Mixed Use Three Story) to G-RX-5 (General Urban Residential Mixed Use Five Story) in Council District 6. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-25-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05052014_14-0397
|
Speaker 1: We do have two proclamations this evening by Councilman Lopez. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation number 397?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 397 series of 2014. This is recognizing the National Association of Letter Letter Carriers and the stamp out Hunger Food Drive on May 10th, 2014. Whereas on the second Saturday of May each year, our intrepid band of letter carriers fan out across the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the District of Columbia, and carry out an important act of kindness. And. Whereas, on that day, the letter carriers not only deliver the mail, but they also collect food contributed by postal customers as part of the stamp out hunger campaign and drive that in the nation's largest one day food drive and this and distribute the donations to local food banks. A total of £1.3 billion over the past 21 years. And. Whereas, 22nd Stamp out of Hunger Drive will be on May 10th this year. And it is one example of how letter carriers make the difference in the communities they serve. And. WHEREAS, all food collected in Denver stays in Denver distributed by Food Bank of the Rockies, and greatly helps those in need within our community. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by those by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one. Now, the City Council hereby recognizes and thanks the National Association of Letter Carriers. And each of our letter carriers for their hard work year round and for their commitment to stamp out a hunger food drive. Section two at the Clerk of the City and County of Denver Store Test and affix a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to the National Association of Letter Carriers.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: I move that council proclamation number 397 series of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Well, I can tell you that I don't expect very much opposition. I think a lot of folks like to receive their letters, but I do have to express that. I was contacted by a bunch of dogs out in the neighborhood and they're very displeased with this. They do not like the idea of postal carriers being good guys and good ladies who apologize in advance for a lot of those dogs on the west side and only about a foot tall, but they're fierce and they chase the letter carriers around. I got to say, most of the people who I have come to know that have not only been very fit and walk fast, but have been very courteous, have been letter carriers. And now that I think of it, some people in my life who are very significant are letter carriers. And they've always they've always been very impeccable with their time. They've been a lot of workers, and they've always been cheery. For some reason, I think that's because they walk around so much and they whistle and you see them around. And, you know, I know our letter to letter carriers that deliver our route and they're amazing people. They're really cool. And actually, the one thing I got to say about them is they are the eyes and ears of the neighborhood. They don't just deliver the mail, but they are a part of the neighborhood. They're a part of neighborhood life. They report, you know, danger when they see it. They report crime. There's been letter carriers that have disrupted bank robbery now bank robberies, house burglaries, things like that. We've had instances where people who had not answered their door in a long time because they are in an emergency and are unable to move, have been contacted by or the first time point of contact. And their I guess their life saving point of contact has been a letter a letter carrier. There's just a lot of honor in what they do. Anyway, if it wasn't for this campaign, it's really hard work. You know, we complain when it snows three feet of snow here in Denver or if it's a hot day or it's very cold. Those letter carriers are out there almost nonstop. For them to be doing this campaign and not only delivering that mail, not only come in to what they do on the job, but to be able to carry canned goods back to their trucks, back to their stations and back to the food bank from our houses. I think that's that's that you got to there's something very honorable in that. I think it's a lot of hard work to be able to do that. And it's a lot of commitment. And, you know, there's a lot of people that are still depending on food banks. And for some people, this is the only nutrition and the only food they'll get that they can afford. Many of them live in food deserts, and these food banks depend on drives like this. So. Madam President, I am very proud to carry this proclamation. I know the letter carriers. I think their local is in Council District three. Right. Right off our Christian shared. And I'm very proud of that. So. Madam President, I support this wholeheartedly. And I saw my colleagues join me and I would ask that folks at home on May 10th leave out some canned goods with their man with their mail.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Kennish, I just wanted to say thank you for what you do. I love that it's.
Speaker 3: Often on Mother's Day weekend and.
Speaker 1: In particular, you know, we had a major federal cut to food stamps this year. And so the food bank demand is really increasing.
Speaker 3: It seems so counterintuitive. Our economy is getting better.
Speaker 1: But it's just not for folks whose wages haven't gone up. And so I just wanted to.
Speaker 3: Say thank you for.
Speaker 1: What you do. And I'm so excited.
Speaker 3: That my.
Speaker 1: Colleague, Mr. Lopez, proposed this and I appreciate his sponsorship of this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I also wanted to say thank you and also to let you know that there's a big box in the building that I live in. And so now I'm going to go knock on everybody's door and get some food so that we can help contribute as well. But every day when I am either leaving or coming home, my timing is always just right with the letter carrier. And so just the idea that they're sitting there and they're always happy and. They're just whistling and just happy to be alive in and be able to do such a humble service for people is so heartwarming. So thank you very much. And I'll be supporting this proclamation.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Nevitt.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. To quote from the letter carrier's credo, neither snow nor rain nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. That pretty much says it all. And they've been providing this service and we've been relying on them since the founding of the republic. So keep it up.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Okay, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Lopez Hi.
Speaker 3: Montero.
Speaker 4: Nevitt Hi.
Speaker 3: Rob. By Brooks Brown. I thought I finished Lehman. Hi, Nevitt.
Speaker 4: I again. Hope you're right.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Councilwoman Fox and Councilwoman Sheppard. Okay. Madam Secretary, close of voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilman Lopez, do you have somebody you'd like to call up to the podium?
Speaker 4: Yes, I would. I wanted to ask Cindy and she come up to the oh, then you can come as well to come up to the microphone and representing the National Association of Letter Carriers. Private army, an army of letter carriers.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead. Introduce yourself. My name is Cindy Kirby. I'm with the letter carriers and I have some great folks with me today. Introduce themselves individually, however you'd like to. You can introduce them or they can.
Speaker 3: Is Jasmine Lee Robles.
Speaker 1: Hello Jasmine I'm Kelly Robles and I'm I carry out of.
Speaker 6: Aurora Centennial a play.
Speaker 4: My name's Jeff Frye I carry out of Denver branch 47 and downtown where I think your box was put.
Speaker 1: Lovely. Thank you for being here. Kelly. Kelly is our statewide food drive coordinator and Jeff is our branch food coordinator. Both of them are new in their positions and they're doing a fantastic job this year. We're hoping we're doing more advertising to get more and more folks to be.
Speaker 3: Aware of the drives and remember to put the.
Speaker 1: Can.
Speaker 4: In the mailbox.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. It's nonperishable items.
Speaker 1: Nonperishable items. Okay.
Speaker 4: The canned food out $1 by £5 of food.
Speaker 1: Oh, my. That's a great.
Speaker 4: It's a very, very worthy cause. And it feeds a lot of kids that are just getting out of school where they have to rely on the school lunch programs for their meals and sometimes their only meal during the day. So this is critical for to stock the food that's during the summer months.
Speaker 1: Thank you for all you do for our neighborhoods. It just reminds me of Mr. Rogers. And was it Mr. Feely, who was the was speedy.
Speaker 4: Speedy delivery?
Speaker 1: Was speedy delivery or somebody and maybe he was on Sesame Street. But anyway, thank you so much for doing all this. It's really great to have you here. Thank you. Okay. We have another proclamation by none other than Councilman Lopez.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the National Association of Letter Carriers and the Stamp Out Hunger Food Drive on May 10, 2014.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05052014_14-0154
|
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I know that Council Bill 154 would be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved. I need a second token. Thank you much. I have moved. It has been removed. And second Ed Constable's 154, 145 and 199 approve zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. They may be picked up from the council secretary after 30 days or after the conclusion of any court cases. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents, and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. The public hearing for Councilor Bell 154 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam President and members of Council. My name is Tim Watkins with Community Planning Development here to present rezoning application 2013 I 53. This is for property located at 3226 West 19th Avenue, located in Northwest Denver Council District one and right at the top of West Colfax neighborhood, just bordering Sloane Lake on 19th Avenue. And here the property is highlighted just half block from Halleck Park to the West, two and a half blocks to the east. As Federal Boulevard, we have higher capacity transit, getting folks to towards downtown and other areas of the city. This is a carriage lot with alleys on two sides. Here's a shot from 19th Avenue. Looking at the property frontage, you can see an alley on either side. This is a view to the south. Along one of the alleys, you can see the rear facing garages of the residential properties to the east or to the west. Excuse me. And this is a neighborhood with a mix of multifamily structures, as well as single family units mixed throughout the neighborhood. This is a property just to the north, just to the south, the other carriage lot, the adjoining carriage lot. So the applicant is Abby House LLC, ABC House LLC, represented by Mary Rivas and the representative is here this evening and available to respond to questions. Comments. The request is from PD 81 to GM. You three were general urban multi-unit maximum of three stories. PD 81 allows for two additional units in addition to the existing single family home. Here's a map of the district map and PD 81 showing the existing single family home and the allowance for an additional duplex option to the rear of a maximum of 40 feet high. The existing contact surrounding the property is you can see the orange colored lots represent multifamily units. These tend to be older structures, one or two story duplexes, some three or four or more units, as well as a number of single family dwellings mixed throughout. In fact, this is a neighborhood undergoing quite a bit of transition. The center image, in fact, if you were to go there today, those homes have actually been demolished and there will be a new project built on that property. This is an example of some of the newer infill development occurring in the neighborhood just to the west excuse me, just to the east is this single family property. And further up the street to the west, you see some of the new infill development. Tivity taking place in the neighborhood. So the public review process has included applicant and R.A. letters and emails to the various groups that you see listed here. There was written notice of receipt of application. There was proper notification prior to planning board. There have been no formal responses. Only one inquiry planning board recommended approval on February 19th and there was proper written notification for Ludie and as well as for this public hearing tonight. Legal posting and written notification. So looking at our review criteria, the consistency with adopted plans includes references in Plan 2000, which encourages for sustainable development and infill development within sites where services are already in place and meeting the needs of increasingly diverse housing. Now, Blueprint Denver actually calls this an area of stability and single family residential. But I would point out the zoning prior to Blueprint Denver's adoption in 2002 was our two zoning, which allowed for two units and then PD 81, which allows for three units, was adopted in 1982, also prior to Blueprint Denver and then in 2010, as part of the comprehensive legislative rezoning, the surrounding properties were re zoned from our two to GMU three. And that's seen here in this zoning map. You can see that on all sides surrounding this property, the new zoning is GMU. Three are general urban multi-unit, three storey maximum height. So PD was not free because there were just too many pads during the comprehensive legislative rezoning to examine each each PD individually. And so 81 was not re zoned with the surrounding area. So the West Colfax Neighborhood Plan adopted first in 1987 re adopted in 2000 supports infill housing at a slightly higher density than what was allowed in our two zoning. And so PD 1881 is consistent with that slightly more dense than our two zoning was prior to 2010. So we find that there is adopted plan support primarily based on the West Colfax Neighborhood Plan. We find that this rezoning would would result in uniform application of district regulations. It would further public health, safety and welfare based on implementation of adopted plans. The justifying circumstances would be that this is consistent with surrounding recently zoned property two, GMU three, and that it is an area of investment in infill development where existing services are in place and transit service and that this is consistent with neighborhood contact zoned district purpose and intent. And therefore CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Mr. Watkins. We have two speakers signed up and I will call on Mary Rivas first. Good evening, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Councilman and councilwoman. I am Mary Rivas, and I live in northwest Denver. And available for any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. Now we call on Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Chairman CQ flexed our action movement for Self-defense. Advocate for poor, working, poor and homeless people. Well, tonight we have the honor of standing with Sister Mary Bills and supporting this zoning change for a couple of reasons. One, she's outstanding and she's willing to work with us to begin to develop economic units for poor people who can actually own their units through cooperative housing programs that are now existing upon the federal government of $60 million that haven't been accessed by the city yet over the last four years before people own their own unit cooperative housing. So we talked to her. She's also have experience of working with organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which allows us to build the people as we build the houses, because out of that, we get people who are trained in painting and plumbing and this and that and the others so they can actually own and pay for the unit that they build themselves so that we have no more exodus of poor, working, poor and homeless people, no more excuses of unintended consequences of why we don't get the job done when we have everything to work with other than the political will. So we would like for you to approve this. And bottom line is everything else around her is already zoned for this. DMU three And for whatever reasons, not to put any onus on anyone. Things happen. There's unintended consequences. She was missed out and she has every right to be included. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: That concludes our speakers for this evening. Are there questions by members of council and seeing no questions, a public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sheppard is not here. Is there anyone else? Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 3: I just as an at large representative, thought it would be nice for you to hear from one of your council representatives and terms of appreciating your willingness to work with our process. We did not.
Speaker 1: Do the.
Speaker 3: PEDs during the overall city rezoning, and.
Speaker 1: We understand that that puts.
Speaker 3: The burden on some individual owners. But it seems well-planned in this case in terms of the matching of the zoning. And so I would urge our colleagues.
Speaker 1: To support it. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Kennish. All right. It looks like we are ready for roll call.
Speaker 3: Kenneth Lehman I Monteiro Nevett. Hi, Rob. By Brooks Brown.
Speaker 4: I fight.
Speaker 3: II. Lopez All right. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I am secretary close of voting. Announce the results tonight. Ten Eyes and the zoning has passed. We'll move on to the next one. Councilman. Councilwoman, first, will you please put council vote 153 on the floor.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 153 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 3226 W. 19th Avenue from P.U.D 81 to G-MU-3 in Council District 1. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 3226 W. 19th Avenue from P.U.D 81 to G-MU-3 in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-11-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05052014_14-0155
|
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 153 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. I need a second. Second? Thank you, Councilman Brown. The public hearing for Council Bill 155 is open. May we have the staff report? It's Mr. Watkins.
Speaker 4: It's me again. And happy to present rezoning application 2013 I 55 of the property located at 1205 to 1275 Osage. This is located in Central Denver, just a few blocks south of Colfax Avenue in Council District nine and right near the well. It's in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, right near the 10th A.H. Station, light rail station. So here is the property highlighted. It is just over two acres, 2.34 acres. There is an existing two storey warehouse building which is currently vacant. The property is also vacant. As you can see in this aerial image. The property is located just across from the llama, Lincoln Park and just 2 to 3 blocks from the 10th panel stage station, street light rail station. Here's a view of the property from 13th Avenue. Looking south along the property frontage park just to the to the east. Here's a view looking towards the southwest from the park. And you can see the light rail in the background and the vacant warehouse building to the left. And here's a view of the property along the building frontage again with the park to the left or to the west. So the applicant is a and j investments represented by Bruce Larson in city architects and others. The owners and representatives are here this evening and available for public comment. The requested to rezone from r m u20 with waivers to CMCs five. So ami 20 is a mixed use zone, and the waiver was just simply waiving the right to build any further away than zero feet. So as a zero or a zero foot build to requirement and the request is to see Annex five or urban center mixed use. Mixed uses with a maximum of five stories. So the most recent use for this property was warehouse in the existing structure. But as I mentioned, the building and land are currently vacant and it seems to be a prime location for infill development, transit oriented development being just 2 to 3 blocks from 10th in all state Osage station and significant amount of development currently underway, including some of the Denver Housing Authority projects that are nearing completion or have been completed. There are also some light industrial uses to the north, an office and multifamily uses to the south. So the public review process at present has included extensive applicant outreach to the registered neighborhood, as well as letters and emails to all applicable neighborhoods or organizations as listed here. Written Notice of receipt of application back in January. Notification Sign is posted on the property prior to the public hearing at Planning Board and they recommended unanimous approval on February 19th. There were public comments provided and support provided by the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association and the new said Community Development Corporation, and their letters are contained in the staff report and proper written notification prior to Ludie , as well as the legal posting written notification for this public hearing this evening. So look at the review criteria, starting with consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages infill development and sustainable development, particularly near centers of activity. I'd like to point out that there's a particular reference here under land use to work with the Denver Public Schools to preserve and incorporate educational facilities as key elements of healthy neighborhoods. Also changing travel behavior, promoting opportunities that bring people together to build connections between each other. Blueprint Denver Conceptually, this is an area of change and mixed use. Feature land use and the recently adopted llama Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan adopted in 2010, shows this area's transit oriented development and encourages a rich mix of uses including housing, jobs, shopping, parks and other amenities, and with a key goal to provide opportunities for local job training and education. Additionally, in the review criteria, this would result in a uniform application of district regulations and further public health, safety and welfare through implementation of adopted, adopted neighborhood and comprehensive plans. The justifying circumstance would be that there is a rail station and surrounding transit oriented development that are rapidly developing and bringing more people living and working in the area near transit and that the property is vacant. Both the building and the land area and are ripe for infill and redevelopment or adaptive reuse and also would find CBD also finds that this is consistent with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent, and we therefore recommend approval based on finding all review criteria have been met.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Watkins. We have four people signed up to speak. Let me call on Josh Comfort.
Speaker 4: Okay. Good evening, Madam President. Members of Council. My name is Josh Comfort. I reside at 678 Lafayette Street here in the city and county of Denver. I'm an architect, and I'm.
Speaker 0: Also an owner's.
Speaker 4: Representative this evening here representing the owner of the property between 1205 and 1275 Osage Street. Just as a quick, quick history, because I think we'll all appreciate this as to where this rezoning is headed. My initial two conversations with the owner of this property where back in 2002, 12 years ago, in which as an architect, we prepared a number of design concepts for the property.
Speaker 0: We established a vision.
Speaker 4: And for the future of a substantial residential apartment complex over the entire piece of property. And for a period of time, those plans lay dormant. 2007, five years later, after some things calmed down in other areas of the country, in fact, we reengaged on our design process.
Speaker 0: Engaged the local.
Speaker 4: Community, building an architectural firm of VanMeter Williams Pollock to be our architects of record on this.
Speaker 0: We designed the project and by 2009.
Speaker 4: We had permitted two phases of residential construction between 12th and 13th on Osage Street. And we also had proceeded with the demolition of the old.
Speaker 0: Comac paint factory.
Speaker 4: At the north end of the block, which many of you may remember. The owner of the property actually.
Speaker 0: Owned the property since the late seventies.
Speaker 4: He operated the Comac paint factory as a paint factory in the late seventies. So he's been in this neighborhood for a number of different years. 2012.
Speaker 0: We unfortunately.
Speaker 4: Lost our tenant.
Speaker 0: In the warehouse building.
Speaker 4: We had previously lost our financing on the project with the economic downturn and as a result put the park project back on the market. And in 2013.
Speaker 0: We fortuitously came across the Denver public.
Speaker 4: School system in the form of the Emily Griffith Technical College looking for a new home.
Speaker 0: So we have a marriage which we think.
Speaker 4: Is quite effective here. Our process, we feel, has been consistent over the past 12 years, unfortunately, that long.
Speaker 0: In that we have reached out to the.
Speaker 4: Community on a regular basis. We spent time with Councilwoman Monteiro and her office and her staff. We've worked with the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association with regularity at their meetings and ad hoc basis. We've also coordinated with new said the economic development arm over on Santa Fe Drive, as well as the Denver Housing Authority as they've developed the Mariposa Housing Complex just to our south. We've attended.
Speaker 0: A number of meetings.
Speaker 4: We've also been through now this our second rezoning, if you will, by virtue of changes in zoning within the city and county of Denver. The first rezoning was to the RMU tow, which allowed us to build a residential the second. Now to do this mixed use project.
Speaker 0: There is a future for this, and that is we.
Speaker 4: Intend to consummate this lease with Denver public school system and we tend to move forward with securing financing then for the balance of the project.
Speaker 1: Mr. Comfort, your time is up.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Very much. Appreciate your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Should we have that built? She said now or just wait until the speakers come?
Speaker 3: I think it doesn't matter either way. She could just state the proper motion.
Speaker 1: Okay. The council, in fact, has noticed something. Good for you for paying such close attention that she mentioned the wrong build number. So we'll just ask you to put the bill on the floor again.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to withdraw my previous motion and move that council bill 155 not 153 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Second, thank you very much, Councilman, and thank you very much for noticing that. Really appreciate you're watching out for those details. Okay. I will go ahead with the public hearing and I will call up Mr. Jeff Perry.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Council. My name is Jeff Barrett. I reside at 2035 South Clarkson Street, Denver, Colorado. I'm the executive director of Emily Griffith Technical College, and I'm also here representing Denver Public Schools. Thank you for the consideration of the rezoning. This is a very important project, I think, not just for Denver Public Schools, selfishly speaking for Emily Griffith Technical College and looking for a new home for our Applied Trades Programs, but also for the neighborhood itself, and looking at creating educational opportunities, job training opportunities, as well as community education possibilities and classes that benefit what's going on in the Santa Fe Arts District and all the redevelopment that's happening in that neighborhood as well. I'm currently working on several projects with the and some public private partnerships as well that would strengthen, I think, this location and the types of programs that we offer. And I would also like to say that we're excited about the close access to the 10th and Osage light rail station, which I think enhances the TOD operation and the renovation that's currently going on with that neighborhood. We've hosted Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association repeatedly on our campus. As for their input and some of the design process looked at our classroom schedule, they're very excited about the training opportunities. I'll be offering a scholarship through Emma Griffiths Foundation to benefit people that live and work in that community to attend in the Technical College as well. So I'm here to support this and hope that you support it as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Garrett. And welcome to the Chamber's Bruce Larson.
Speaker 2: Pardon. But it's just like, how do I do that?
Speaker 4: Excuse me. Thank you. Madam President. Council members. Thank you. My name is Bruce Larson. I'm with Larson and Chidi Architects of 3191, South Fillmore in Denver. I think I wrote my business address on there, which is 1900 was E Street. I hope that's okay. I want to talk just a bit about the plans, and I'm trying to get the site plan up here. Thank you. I mean, we're very proud to be a part of this project. We looked far and wide to find a building that would that would fit this program. It's about 50,000 square feet of trades programs. And we'll talk about those in a moment. But this is the site plan on your screen. Osage is to the bottom and the light rail is immediately to the upper part or to the west in this case. But this will, you know, this require a full development redevelopment of this site, new parking, landscaping. We are parking, you know, off the main street, which is nice, kind of tucked around behind the building. But they'll be great access up and down the street for for pedestrians and people coming to it from light rail and bus drop offs. These are the two floor plans. It's a 50,000 square foot building, 25,000 square feet on each floor. The first floor is the upper portion of the screen. It contains auto training for auto tech, auto collision, welding. These are obviously some spaces that needed to be on the first floor. And then the second floor contains training areas for mechanical repair of mechanical systems, upholstery, CAD, CAD training and water quality training. These are unique programs and this is just a great fit within this neighborhood. We feel in a great transition. I know that the neighborhood is in transition, and I think this would be a a great amenity. We're going to try and give this this whole building some new life architecturally. And we want to be, you know, wanted to be we want to be proud of it. The make the students proud and the staff and the neighborhood. So this these are some renderings of the completed project. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Mr.. Larson Scoop.
Speaker 7: Yes, Chairman Sekou. Bless the action movement. My pleasure to be an advocate for poor, working, poor and homeless people. We are excited about the possibilities of this project and it's moments like this that that makes it worthwhile coming down here and participating for the last three years and meeting such as this. And so committee meetings, because every now and then you get an energy boost and you get some hope and you get some faith. And somewhere along the lines, somebody is doing something that I had no idea that it was doing. And and I get a chance to meet Josh Comfort as perfect name because I'm real comfortable with him and I'm comfortable with his vision of what he's trying to do and also some things that are coming up possibly in the next couple of years that will provide us with an opportunity to actually have some pilot projects, building some economic units that poor people can own as they go to school and retool and get ready to come back up because of unintended consequences of an economy that just went crazy and people lost their jobs, didn't make them bad people, they just got caught up. And so the great thing about coming here is you can't get this what I'm experiencing right now, what I'm feeling looking at television, you got to actually come down here and meet these people and they get a part of this thing before we get started. So I'm encouraging all of our friends and supporters in the movement that we represent to start coming down to the city council meeting, start making the context now for the projects are going to be built in the future so that we can be included in the bottom of the development and begin being a part of the initial conversation so that we can actually say that this is our city and it represents everybody. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay. That ends our speakers. Are there questions from Council Councilwoman Robb?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I thought Tim presented a credible case for the zoning, quoting from the plan about schools and neighborhoods. But I do have a couple questions for the gentleman from DPS. Is it Peterson?
Speaker 1: Barrett.
Speaker 5: Barrett. Oh, okay.
Speaker 1: Barrett.
Speaker 4: Pretty good.
Speaker 5: Where is this training that you described, the auto shop and some of the water treatment stuff? Where is that currently occurring?
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 1: Yes, go right ahead.
Speaker 4: This is occurring at 1250. Well, the street where we've resided for 97 years.
Speaker 5: And then my second question is, it looks like there's going to be a fair amount of investment to retrofit the building, and it looks great. But did I hear them say that DPS is only leasing the property?
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Is that common in DPS property management? I mean, what would happen if that were to sell? It's just I know it's more of a school board question than a city council question.
Speaker 4: And I'm not as knowledgeable on DPS practice as your question is asking, but we're entering into a long term lease and anticipate it for many, many years at this project.
Speaker 5: Do you know the length of the lease?
Speaker 4: 20 years. 20 years?
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Did you have any other questions, Council?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Munter.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. This is for whoever wants to take it. But it was originally zoned RMU 20. And now can you give me the reasoning for wanting to see a mixed five? Buddy. Anybody?
Speaker 4: I probably should have mentioned that that the rezoning the new zone district would allow for vocational education.
Speaker 6: So that.
Speaker 4: Our new 20 does not.
Speaker 6: Yeah. So this year, mix five allows for vocational or professional services?
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 6: Educational under an educational category. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Nevitt.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. There's a question for Mr. Comfort. I just wanted to hear the rest of the story that got us to today. With respect to the financing and other machinations.
Speaker 1: Councilman, you're very good at that.
Speaker 4: I think you've gotten to 2012.
Speaker 1: So you were going to get a chance to finish.
Speaker 4: I was on Kensington, Madam President.
Speaker 0: It's the rest of the story is very brief. Fortunately, the rest of the story is with the lease going into place and the ability to be able to.
Speaker 4: Utilize the cash flow, etc. from that particular building. It puts our developer in a position to be able to secure financing for the development of his initial phase of residential on the North End. Exactly the way they can enter the property that could happen within a period of about three years is what we're anticipating that that list could begin and we intend to build that out fully at the time. And we would be living with a mixed use block for the next 20 years. As we mentioned in the terms of the lease.
Speaker 0: The opportunities after that are obviously in the future and we can't speak to.
Speaker 4: That directly, although we do have contingency plans for a second half second phase, if you will, of residential development on the south half of the block as well. Should that become available for redevelopment in the future? Oh, I see. This answer is actually a couple of questions all at the same time. So I had the same question that Councilwoman Robb had about DPS. I mean, 20 years seems like a long time. It's not really a very long time. So the the owner didn't want to if I understand if I'm reading between the lines, right. The owner didn't want to sell the property permanently to Denver Public Schools. For Emily Griffith, you have potentially future plans for those parcels. You're using a building. That building could come down. You can do more on it. But this is an interim plan to help finance phase one of the the residential, at the same time finding a home for Emily Griffith for the next generation. Yes, that's very well put. And certainly in the development world, keeping options open for the future. As development, as economics may, change is a fundamental tenant. That's where what we're doing is keeping our options open for the future. But we're certainly locked in at this particular program for the next 20 years. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And also, I would expect in 20 years that the technology for cars will be quite different and that we'll be having driverless cars. And so 20 years is plenty of time to.
Speaker 4: 20 years from now, you'll be able to have the auto repair on the second floor.
Speaker 1: And yes, because of our jetpacks that we are going to have. Thank you, Councilman Nevett. Councilman Rux.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Nevitt actually took my question. I wanted to bring up Mr. Comfort to expound upon the in since he got cut off. But I use my time to bring up my current constituent, Jeff Baird, executive director for Emily Griffith. I have a question for you. Yeah. And, you know, most of my and maybe some of my colleagues in the thousands of viewers at home that are watching don't know the plans for Emily Griffith and the multiple sites that you'll will be breaking up into. So two questions. Can you talk about all those sites that she'll be gone all over the city and then to the number of people from this neighborhood who will have access to this this job, these jobs, this job training opportunity.
Speaker 1: And President, go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. In 1947, Emily Griffith had a high of its enrollment ever of 37,000 students in the city. You put your head around that. And we were scattered across multiple locations across the city in storefronts doing retail training, you name it. We were doing training in church basements, etc. We've been occupying our current campus since 1916. We're rapidly approaching our 100 year anniversary, which is very exciting. We've been in the same location. The original building was raised and the oldest part of the structure is 1926, added on a couple of times, 4756 in the Glenarm building as well . We have occupied this space which is not allowed is for capacity building. It's an aging facility. And so we've been looking for a new home. Well, since I've been there and before I arrived four years ago, we are currently moving into 110,000 square feet of our. In answer to your question of our operation to 19th and Lincoln Street, 1860, Lincoln Street, which is now renamed the Emily Griffith campus in honor of her legacy and will house three of our four colleges, as well as Central, Low or central administration and student support. We also will be locating 50,000 square feet to 1205 Osage, which is Applied Trades or college of Trades and industry. And we also have a building that we're renovating, a 209th Street, which will have a video production program and our broadcast studios that we have Channel 22 as part of the PEG funding. Thank you for that. For the city. And we also have an instructional service center in partnership with the far northeast of which we have talked about in with the academy at airport way. So we're building capacity and expanding our outreach. We serve 8000 students, both credit and noncredit, and are looking at ways in which we can build capacity. So that's the rationale behind what we're doing. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Okay. I'm going to close the hearing and ask for comments. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. As we stated earlier, the primary purpose for the zoning to CMCs five is to allow for vocational training under the under the education category. The most amazing thing about how far you've come is all of the different things we've talked about. At one point you were talking about a church in the neighborhood, was worried about parking. And so all of those conversations eventually got us to, I think, a better a better use. And I believe that the neighborhood believes that, too. So for many of my colleagues, you've heard me talk about 10th and Osage and you've heard me talk about Denver Housing Authority and Lama Lincoln Park and the Mariposa Program, or that public mixed income housing and that particular housing project is actually on a national list with HUD, which is amazing. And so the the fabric of this neighborhood just continues to to strengthen because right at 10th and Osage and on a nearby within a quarter mile is the llama, Lincoln Park, the swimming pool, the Mariposa program. Colorado High School is nearby. West High School is a little bit further inner city parish and in the Alamo Lincoln Park Recreation Center. So my point is, is that this is right in the middle of this whole vibrant community that's coming together. And the other part is, is that for students that go to Emily Griffin, they decide that they want to jump on the light rail and head over to area campus. It's like 10 minutes away. And so this is an amazing use and I think that it's one of the most compatible that we could have at this site. The neighborhood is completely embracing this particular use because of all the the young, aspiring people that we have within the community, especially at West High School and and Colorado High School. And the idea of just being able to not go very far, to go to Emily Griffin and possibly that will open more doors for other things is just an amazing possibility in my opinion. So I completely, 100% support this application tonight and would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Okay. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Monteiro I never I rub by Greg's eye. Brown I thought I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Close of voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes sounding passes now. Councilwoman Fox. Will you please put Council Bill 199 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I know the Council Bill 199 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 1205-1275 Osage Street from R-MU-20 w Waivers (2008-106) to C-MX-5 in Council District 9. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 1205-1275 Osage Street from R-MU-20 w Waivers (2008-106) to C-MX-5 in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-11-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05052014_14-0199
|
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I know the Council Bill 199 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 199 is open and will open with the staff report.
Speaker 4: Madam President, Councilor David Jaspers with Community Planning and Development with a MAP amendment to change the zoning at 12 South Garfield Street. This is in Council District Number ten in the Cherry Creek neighborhood in specific Cherry Creek East. If we zoom into the lot here, it's a vacant lot on the southeast corner of Ellsworth Avenue and Garfield Street. First Avenue, just a block to the north called Rado Boulevard is just a few blocks to the east of this location. Here's a quick snapshot looking towards the southeast on the lot. It is just over 12,000 square feet in size. No structures on it, of course. The property owner, Mag Builders, Representatives Mike and Kim Molnar are here tonight and we're looking to rezone this lot from the existing pretty number 583 to grh3 as the general urban neighborhood context row house with three stories as the maximum height. The existing PD 583 was approved back in 2005. Very specific PWD either allowed a four unit rowhouse, essentially one structure, four units. The G RH three would allow two duplexes. Still four units. Just two structures. It's surrounded by pods. There is g, rh three in the neighborhood as well as being adjacent to the southeast. It is generally rowhouses and townhouses all around this property. The nearest single family is on the block on the Jacksons street facing. There's a on the row house and surrounding it. I have a few visuals here to give you an idea of the scale and context generally 2 to 3 stories in the heights, looking to the northwest and south. And this is just across the alley to the east on the Jackson Street side of the block. Planning board unanimously approved this in March. Went from bloody off in March. And we're here tonight for the public hearing typical public outreach process. The Cherry Creek East Association did provide a letter of support, as well as an adjacent property owner, sending an email letter of support for approving this rezoning. We looked at the review criteria and focused on the consistency of adopted plans. There's multiple strategies in the plan that show this is consistent with a composite plan. 2000 Blueprint Denver. The land use concept is urban residential. It is an area of stability, but it is a vacant lot. The streets are designated as local streets, which are appropriate for residential uses. More recently, the Cherry Creek Area Plan gives us a little more detail in the Cherry Creek East section of that plan. There's a three story building height maximum. It has a specific recommendation to rezone old pods when possible and to respect the existing scale. The neighborhood, the G RH three would do all three of those recommendations. So we do find consistency with adopted plans. As I mentioned, there is a grade three in the neighborhood with similar building forms, so there is uniformity of district regulations . Filling in the vacant lot helps further public health, safety and welfare. Improving the walkability neighborhood. The changing, changing conditions. There's a adopted plan that does recommend redevelopment of the area, and it is consistent with neighborhood context. The zone district purpose intent of the zoning code. With that, CPD does recommend approval based on meeting all the review criteria.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Jaspers. Appreciate that. I'm going to call up Michael Moylan. Do we do that on purpose?
Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam President and Council. I am the representative mag of the property and mag builders. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Moyle. Sorry it gave you such a shock. SACU.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Germans say Ku Klux Klan movement. Advocate for working poor and homeless people. We support the zoning change for a couple of reasons. Although not required by law. When these units are made available and because they're under that ceiling of 29 where they have to include affordable housing, we decided that that is not acceptable and that at every turn we, the poor or the homeless, must come together and enroll folks into this process. But even if it's three units. How about consider us have one? Because one more or less makes us one more greater of a city. And so we don't want you to be limited by the law, but to speak about a more moral authority of how we have to reach out and help those that got caught up and need to help. Help. And so as we go through this process, we would like to encourage you to consider the opportunities that may be available for you to assist in this process so that we can lighten up the load, take a lot of politics out of this deal, and just go on and do the right thing for the right reason, because this really ain't all this and we can make this happen. But we've got to start working from the bottom up because I'm not a leader, I'm just a shipbuilder. And we got holes in this boat and this boat is sinking and we're all on it together. And only when we come together can we rebuild a boat. A ship where we can put a leader in front of this thing and hopefully we can sail on home with it. And then the true idea of what home is can maybe come to fruition, because maybe that's a place where just a lot of love overflowing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sekou. Questions from counsel. Do I have any questions? And seeing none. I know there's one councilman. Never.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just had a question that may be on everybody's mind is how did you manage to find a vacant lot in Cherry Creek? I mean, are there more than one, really? Okay.
Speaker 1: Did you did you want that answer to that?
Speaker 4: A rhetorical councilwoman Robb is nodding. There is more.
Speaker 5: Answer in comment.
Speaker 1: All right. Go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Oh, well, I was going to wait to my comments, but yes, there are vacant lots, some some of them old pads that haven't been developed. I'm sure there's probably an opportunity there for you, Councilman Nevett. And amazingly, the district with the boom that we've seen in higher buildings, in the commercial buildings, there are a number of new row and single family houses going up. If you drive around over there, sort of surprises me. Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay. With that, close the public hearing and ask for comments. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Well, you are quick. I didn't even click in yet.
Speaker 1: I knew I.
Speaker 5: Was. Well, I will be supporting this tonight as the letters in the packet indicate. This has been vetted with the neighborhood. There were concerns about drainage and landscaping in meg builders worked with the neighborhood on this. And then my my side note is as many of my colleagues know, they're in Cherry Creek East, which is just east of the mall rather than north of the ball. There are a number of puddles because a previous plan had a long list of design guidelines. In fact, a separate document was created, but they were never really passed by planning board. So the neighborhood advocated for Pwds to make sure that design guidelines were met. Those design guidelines are still really important to the neighborhood, but as you can see, you have a project here going from four units to four units and you can see the awkwardness of a pad that is so specific it tells how the units are to be attached. So in this case, it's good news. They were able to move into 2014 zoning based on our 2010 new zoning code and I'm will be supporting it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Robb and I don't see any other comment. So, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Rob. Hi. Brooks Hi. Brown Hi. But I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Monteiro Nevett, I. Madam President, hi.
Speaker 1: And Secretary close voting, not the results tonight. Ten Eyes. The zoning is passed. On Monday, May 12th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 365, naming the city on building. Located at 2855 Tremont Place, the Elba M Wedgeworth Municipal Building on June 2nd, 2014. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 304, changing the zoning classification of 2000 East 28th Avenue and a required public hearing on Council Bill 305. Changing the Zoning Classification for 3600 East Alameda Avenue 319 South Garfield Street, 301 South Garfield Street and 314 South Monroe Street. Any protests against Council Bill three or four are Council Bill 305 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Tuesday, May 27th, 2014. Seeing no other business for this body. This meeting is adjourned to tomorrow. Denver 82 New York City.
Speaker 0: Your source Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community. Your city. Your source.
|
Bill
|
Approves the rezoning of 12 South Garfield Street from PUD #583 to G-RH-3 in Council District 10. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves the rezoning of 12 South Garfield Street from PUD #583 with waivers to G-RH-3 in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-25-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04282014_14-0385
|
Speaker 3: and inventors. And made in Denver is a phrase that not only celebrates this rich history, but beckons a diverse, vibrant economic future that can be made even stronger with a thriving manufacturing sector creating primary jobs for the local economy. And. WHEREAS, the Made in Denver moniker will be celebrated uniquely in the upcoming first annual Denver M.A. Fair, debuting on May 3rd and fourth at the National Western Complex, a festival to showcase the work of arts and crafters, inventors, builders, recyclers and other creators in the Denver area. And. Whereas, The Maker Faire will be a multigenerational gathering of ten to 10 to 15000 attendees in its first year, providing the opportunity to participate in interactive exhibits from local businesses, crafters and techies who make, create, engage, learn, invent.
Speaker 1: Craft, hack.
Speaker 3: Recycle, build, think, play and are generally inspired and inspiring. And. Whereas, The Maker Faire is described as the greatest show and tell on Earth, it's a family friendly showcase of invention, creativity and resourcefulness, and a celebration of the maker movement where people show what they're making and share what they are learning in the process of making building community in the process of building products. And. Whereas, the original Maker Faire event started nine years ago in San Mateo, California, and now attracts some 900 makers and 120,000 attendees, there are now flagship maker events in New York, Detroit, Kansas City, New Castle in the UK, Rome, Oslo and Tokyo, and a host of smaller, community driven, independently organized M.A. fairs now being produced around the United States and the world, including our many Maker Faire right here in Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, that Section one, the Council hereby celebrates the May 3rd and fourth 2014 Maker Faire at the National Western Stock Show and urges Denver families and residents to participate in and be amazed by the fun filled Penelope of exhibits being offered in Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to SEAL Harmer, Colorado Hub Maker Hub and Elizabeth Van Dyne, executive director of Colorado Maker Hub and producer of Denver M.A. Fair.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council and commission motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move the council adopt council proclamation 14 Dash 385.
Speaker 4: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilwoman CORNISH.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. What does a maker culture matter to a city? Well, I believe that the importance of the manufacturing economy is often in the large scale production and employment that we have. But each. Those products begins with an idea that begins with someone tinkering either at work or in their own basement. It may begin with a product that you invent for yourself and soon decide to take to market. Or it may just be that you are a small producer making your own living by making your own products. Whether it's large or small scale, this kind of culture is a part of a vibrant city and a part of a strong economy. I'm particularly proud of the importance of creating and inventing products for manufacturing because of the focus we in Denver have had on this sector for the last several years. Our Office of Economic Development is really supporting the growth of manufacturers through a really focused job training and leadership program for youth to learn about the opportunities to make things with their hands. We have partners that are doing greening of their manufacturing businesses through the certifiably green program that's run by our Department of Environmental Health. And we are really working to both attract and retain manufacturers in Denver. And so these new maker cultures that we're trying to promote is really a key, is a foundation to this larger economic impact in Denver. So I'm very pleased to share with folks about this event. It has some history. We actually met with the Museum of Nature and Science and other partners some years ago when we heard about the Maker Faire to try to bring it to Denver. And it is a really costly and high intensity effort. So I'm especially appreciative of the folks who are willing to go through the work to kind of create this event and host it right here in Denver at the stock show. So thank you, Madam President. I encourage all of my colleagues to come out and see and tinker a little bit this weekend. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, counsel. Roll call. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Can each. I. Liman. Lopez Montero. Nevitt Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. I mean president high.
Speaker 4: Powered secretary close voting the results.
Speaker 3: For Vice.
Speaker 4: 12 ies. The proclamation is adopted. Councilman, can you have somebody you'd like to invite up to the podium?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President. Ms.. Van Dyne and S.L. Hamrick, if you can join us at the podium. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Hi. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Steel Harmer. It's nice to be back and I want I'm really happy to introduce Elizabeth Van Dyne. Elizabeth has been very involved in promoting entrepreneurship, economic development, innovation for the state. And last year she started the first no code called the first M.A. Fair in Loveland.
Speaker 3: And it was.
Speaker 2: Such a success two weeks after the floods that she decided to bring it to Denver. So we're thrilled to do that. I've been happy to help her. It's been a very scrappy group. It's a nonprofit, underfunded, as usual. But we're very excited to be bringing this to the National Western and think it's appropriate for all the excite all the redevelopment of National Western as well, in terms of the kind of innovative plans and vision that's going on there. So it's an appropriate site. Elizabeth, thank you so much. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Beach, for this proclamation and for the support of the Maker Faire. I am so honored to represent the makers here in Denver and Colorado through the Maker Faire. It is the best and the brightest. The makers are, for the most part, the most curious, the most innovative creators you will find. And as a result, you'll see everything under the sun. At the Maker Faire, we have robotics, we have rockets coming from the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. We have the Denver Public Library showing off their makerspace. We have the Emily Griffith Technical School bringing examples of blacksmithing. We have fire breathing dragons. We have artists from Reno who are bringing their artworks and also creating a community artwork that everyone can participate in. It's a wonderful festival, but it's not just a festival. I think of it and I always say to myself, This is not just fun. This is serious fun because it's about inspiring people towards manufacturing. It's about inspiring people towards creativity and innovation. It's about inspiring entrepreneurship. We have millions of partnerships. Well, that's an exaggeration. The hundreds of partnerships that we've put together that the fair is a catalyst for collaboration. So we're bringing in, for example, the business catapult that has done business planning competitions in the Denver public schools. And anyone who wants to submit a business plan will get mentored throughout the whole Maker Faire period and be able to have support for their innovation. We have collaborations with organizations throughout the town, including Club Workshop, which is one of the few makerspace spaces, 16,000 square feet in Denver that gives you tools, space technology, training, resources and most important, other makers to talk to. I remember going to one club workshop meeting where one guy said, You know, there's a spirits place here that tosses out all this ethyl alcohol. Alcohol every year that they are using, every day they are using. And what can we do with that? And somebody else said, hey, I'm making an alternative fuel vehicle over here. And within a half an hour, I saw a new business start. It was an amazing thing. So I hope you all come out to the Maker Faire and I hope you'll enjoy all the hands on activities, everything there is hands on, so you'll be able to set off rockets and run robots yourself to solder, learn to solder, try out some, some of the leading edge tools like 3D printing and CMC Milling and SolidWorks CAD design. Everything you can think of to make will be there at the Maker Faire and we look forward to seeing you there.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. Van Dyne and Ms.. Farmer. Nice to see you. Okay, that's the end of our proclamations. We are ready for the resolution. Spanish Secretary Will you read the resolutions.
Speaker 3: From Lynch's translation infrastructure 310 Resolution meaning in the mayor the major encumbrance permit granted the West Colfax Business Improvement District. You include an additional encroachment there West Colfax Avenue and Irving Street 316 a resolution laid out of necessity as part of City Street System. Partial lane is Public Alley bounded by West 36th Avenue, Vallejo Street, West 37th Avenue, and Wyandotte Street, 317. A resolution laying out opening establishing as part of city street system in parts. Atlanta is a public alley bounded by Irving Street, Hooker Street, West 17th Avenue, West 18th Avenue 318 A resolution lane opening establishing spa city street system . Partial lane is a public alley bounded by 18th Street, Broadway, Walton Street and Glenarm Place 326 A resolution laid out beneath two options for our city street system. A parcel of land at Brighton Boulevard at 310 Brighton Boulevard 327 resolution lane out of necessity as far as sister system parcel of land is a public alley bounded by Shoshone Street three on street west 34th Avenue, West 35th Avenue.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Secretary, would you please read the bills for introduction from.
Speaker 3: Business, workforce and Sustainability to 73 bill for an ordinance for new post a mandatory agreement between city and county over a Northeast Denver Housing Center Inc. to extend the term 303 bill for an ordinance for an impose mandatory agreement to the city and county. And News Cingular Wireless Pix LLC 30704 An ordinance for any pro-Second Amendment to agree between city and county. Every deviation and query related to airfield design services at Denver International Airport from Government and Finance 09a bill for an ordinance spending classification, people and or employees in the groceries for certain employees, not in the courier service.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in recognition of the first annual Denver Mini Maker Faire, May 3-4, 2014.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04212014_14-0153
|
Speaker 3: hearings. Councilwoman Kennish, will you please put Council Bill 153 on the floor? Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill.
Speaker 2: 153 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 153 approves a zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review to provide a record for court reviews. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. They may be picked up from the council secretary after 30 days or after the conclusion of any court cases. Speakers We already told you how to begin your remarks. The public hearing for Council Bill 153 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening. Courtland Heiser with Denver Community Planning and Development here to present a proposed rezoning for 2157 Downing Street. The proposal is to rezone from the existing planning and development number 96 to aumx3 zone district. This map shows the location of the proposed rezoning within the city, within Council District eight and within the Five Points neighborhood. This closing view shows the specific location of the property. It's located near the corner of Downing and 22nd Avenue. This would be the eastern edge of the San Rafael neighborhood within five points. And it's a block or two north of the current reconstruction project for exemplar Saint Joseph's Hospital expansion, which shows up pretty well in this aerial from 2012. The property. The current uses restaurant and lounge named Randalls. The property is a fifth of an acre in size. Current zoning is already mentioned as Pudi A96 and the request is to rezone to a you mix three zone district. First, a little bit of information about pad 96. This was created in 1983. The intent was to enable the renovation and expansion of Piers Supper Club, which is a long established use at the time that many of you may remember, the development standards, as was common of this era of planned unit developments, were specific to the proposed renovation of Piers. This means that the use that was proposed at the time is the only use that is allowed by the PWD. The only thing you can have in this building is a restaurant and lounge. Similarly, all of the development standards are also specific to how the building was constructed and renovated. Setbacks, building heights. Everything is exactly what you see on the ground. The request is to rezone to a standard zoned district urban neighborhood mixed use three stories max height the umx3 district. This map shows the context for the zoning in the area and as you can see, the adjacent properties along Downing Street already have the UOM three zoning that the applicant is seeking an exception to. This is the property due north which also has PD zoning as a liquor store zone feud 616 and then to the west, across the alley is a USC A1 zone district and a residential area within San Rafael. In terms of current uses, current use in eating and drinking, establishment adjacent uses to the north, there's a liquor store to the south, a vacant lot to the east across Downing Street, multifamily residential building and to the west. Single family residential homes across the alley. These images show each of those uses. So the subject property is in the image at the bottom. The image at the top is the liquor store to the north. On this slide. The image at the top is the multi-family residential building across the street, Khobar Towers, the property shown in the image. At the bottom of the page here is the vacant lot to the south of the subject property. Here's a view of the property from the parking lot looking towards Downing Street. And then the image at the bottom shows the single family homes that are located across the alley to the west. In terms of process planning, board had its public hearing on this application back in February and recommended approval, then went to Ludy and City Council tonight. The public outreach followed CPD's standard notification process for rezonings, which included notifying all of the registered neighborhood organizations in the area, as well as affected city council members and notification signs were posted on the property prior to both the planning board and city council public hearings. We have received one letter of support that coming from the Uptown Hospital District Urban Design Forum that's included as an attachment to your staff report and to date, zero letters of opposition. This slide outlines the five review criteria for rezoning. We'll go through each of these. The first is consistency with adopted plans. There are four plans that apply to the subject property. We'll walk through each of them now. The first is comp plan 2000. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of comp plan 2000 strategies related to environmental sustainability, mobility, land use and legacies. One thing that most of these strategies have in common is promoting mixed use development and infill in existing neighborhoods and increasing the range of services available to existing neighborhoods. Blueprint. Denver has a land use concept for this property of commercial corridor. That's how it treats all of the properties on the stretch of Downing and identifies it as an area of stability. As you may recall, Blueprint Denver does identify two flavors of areas of stability committed areas, which is really all about preserving the existing character and reinvestment areas, which are areas where some amount of redevelopment, infill reinvestment would be necessary to meet the planned vision. We would consider Downing Street a reinvestment area within an area of stability because of the difference between the existing development and the plan vision that set forth the Street classification and Downing Inn blueprint. Denver is mixed use arterial. The next plan on the list is a rather old one the Welton Downing Triangle Plan, which was adopted back in 1986 but was re adopted with Comp Plan 2000. This plan provides guidance for the triangle shaped area that's roughly bounded by California 20th AV and Downing, and it identifies the subject property as belonging to Sub Area nine, the City Park West Edge. And according to the plan, the Sub Area features a mix of office, retail and residential uses that have developed over time and work quite well together. The plan recommends studying the zoning in this area for possible revisions to help ensure that future development is of a scale that's compatible with the corridor and the adjacent neighborhoods. This, you know, recommendation was fulfilled largely when the city was re zoned in 2010. The R for zoning that was prevalent in this area at the time was remapped and sundowning. Most of the properties received um x three zoning, which is intended to be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The last plan on the list is a northeast downtown neighborhoods plan adopted in 2011. It has a recommendation recommendation A-2, which specifically addresses Downing Street and talks about moderate intensity development along Downing and some other corridors within that plan area help helping to transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The plan also provides specific guidance in the form of land use and building height maps. The recommended land use at the site, according to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, is mixed use and the maximum recommended building height is three stories. So upon conducting this review, CPD has found that the rezoning is consistent with all four of the applicable land use plans in this area. Moving on to the second criteria uniformity of district regulations. This rezoning would bring an old code PD into a standard Denver's zoning code districts. Therefore, the staff opinion is that it would increase the uniform application of district regulations. The third criteria is to further the public health, safety and welfare. And the finding is that by implementing the city's adopted land use plans, that we would be furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The fourth criteria is justifying circumstances. The justifying circumstance that was selected by the applicant was changed conditions. Evidence of the change in conditions can be seen a block or two to the south with the extensive reconstruction of the exemplar Saint Joseph's campus, as well as Downing Street itself. Only a few years ago, Downing in this area was shaped in a semi-circle sort of configuration has since been straightened out. The neighborhood is changing quite a bit, and the final criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. And staff does find that the proposed rezoning to use Max three would lead to development that is consistent with context and zoned district purpose and intent. So upon conducting this review, CPD does recommend approval of this proposed rezoning based on the finding that all of the review criteria have been met.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. We have four people signed up to speak and I will call you one, one after the other. David Bergner.
Speaker 1: David Bergner. I represent the applicant and I reside in the city of Denver. I'm just here to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Berger. Robert Miller.
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Miller. I live in the city of Denver. I represent the ownership as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: We are here to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 3: All right. Thanks very much, Mr. Miller. Charles Brandt, again.
Speaker 1: My name is Charles Braddock, and I live at 2105 Lafayette Street. I'm the chairman of the Hospital District Urban Design Forum. The area surrounding the proposed rezoning is probably the most studied zoning area in the whole city of Denver, and that's mostly because of our constituents that the Hospital District Urban Design Forum and also the immense amount of work that Carl and Madison did years ago during the process of creating the current zone map. Careful consideration was given to what appropriate zoning for that block of Downing Street should be, and it was the consensus that it should it should be as the proposed rezoning for tonight, when the proposal was made, that that would be dissolved and a baseline zoning be reinstituted. Our organization looked at the proposed rezoning very carefully, and it was our unanimous opinion that the rezoning should occur. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Mr. Brannigan.
Speaker 4: Sekou and. Oh.
Speaker 0: Kevin Sekou Flextronics, a movement representing poor, working, poor and homeless people.
Speaker 1: We stand opposed to the rezoning of this particular property. And there has been articles written on this particular article on this particular property because of its historical relationship to the black community. That building has been there for over 50 years, serves three generations of black people. The rezoning will allow them to tear the building down and they have every intention of tearing the building down. Now, Councilman Brooks has received a lot of emails and opposed to not only the sale of the building, but the tearing down of the building and for whatever set of reasons. And that's pretty much going to have to be between his conscience and God. He has chosen to align himself up and align itself with developers, the ones who pay his political bills. And he's not from the area. He's from Boulder and California.
Speaker 3: We are we are we are not going to address council people directly or to speak to.
Speaker 1: No problem the.
Speaker 3: Council person directly.
Speaker 1: No problem. So here we go. Continued gentrification of the neighborhood. And it doesn't apply to the comprehensive plans because one of the aspects of the comprehensive plan was to safeguard the integrity of the neighborhood, both the five point plan, the comprehensive plan, 2000 and on down the road, these aspects of their and this does not qualify for that. So why have these plans if we're not going to go along with them? It's been hundreds of thousands of dollars on plans that we're not going to do when money comes in and impossible. So now this is a question of integrity. That means what do you do when nobody listens? What do you do when nobody's showing up? Well, I'll close with a statement from Nelson Mandela when he was speaking to the white population in South Africa back in 1964 after the Charlottesville massacre. He said, you can come and you can oppress and you can murder and kill us and destroy our people. But I bet you you can't get out. But you can't get out. So come on, bring it down. I dare you.
Speaker 3: Take your seat, Mr. SOCO. Because when you take your seats, take your seat now.
Speaker 1: And you can.
Speaker 3: Take it back. Okay. Questions from the council. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'm Carl Cortland Houser. You know, one of my questions is not about the plans, because obviously they're congruent and consistent. But my question, this is the first rezoning where we did have a tenant who was not fully on board. Right. And so in the city of Denver, one of the things that we want to do is make sure that we have businesses that we're not putting out. And and there are some certain legal restrictions because, you know, there's an agreement on a tenant agreement with the owner and things like that. And so have you had this situation before? And what does CPD do in that type of situation? Well, the the rezoning itself isn't the mechanism that puts a business out of business. You know, the DOMA X three allows the exact use that was already there, the restaurant lounge. You could have that, um, x three. So it isn't the rezoning per se that, you know, creates that situation, but it does give in this case, you know, more flexibility to the owner of the property to do other things with it that are also allowed by the zoning. So my understanding is in this particular situation, an amicable agreement was reached. Yeah. You don't you don't have the the tenant business owner here tonight opposing the rezoning. Yeah. You know, and so this one, this worked out because some folks came together and the owner worked great with the tenant. But my fear is some of these in the future. And I'm just wondering, every plan that we went through was consistent. It was. Right, right. But there are those issues that do come up with with tenants. And I'm just wanted to CPD get involved with that at all. Is there any kind of review that happens that you when you're in the pre application stage with the owner at all to have that conversation? Not directly, no. The in this case, it is certainly a factor in this particular rezoning. A much more common situation that we find with these parties is that there isn't a tenant for the property and the the PD restricts the landowner from doing anything else with it. If you know, I have another rezoning that you'll see here in a few weeks where there's a property under the pad, he he only has two uses instead of one, but he can't find a tenant under those two uses and so needs to amend the pad to make it less restrictive to be able to lease. So that's a more common situation, I would say, than this one in my experience. So. So let me just ask one more question. The only way the tenant will have any any power is if he own a, you know, part of the building or anything like that. Right. If he was the owner and deciding on how to because he was around, he had no. Okay. Let me ask a question then. David Berger. Madam President, if that's okay.
Speaker 3: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: David. You know, as you know, this was contentious with some individuals in the community. Can you talk a little bit about the agreement that you came up with? The tenant, Randall and I, we came up with an agreement where we would forfeit the rent due to us from him for a period of three months. And he was paying 50 $500 a month in order for him to stay in business to save that money for the relocation of his restaurant. And that's what he's done. We have agreed to help him with the architectural plans to tenant finish of his new spot, which I have provided him. And he I think he is committed to the city. We've also offered to do some kind of artwork commemorating the building, as it was when it opened in 1947. The original owner, Mr. Pierre, has declined for us to do that. I don't know why, but the offer was out there and Randall accepted it and he was really looking forward to it. However, that was not something Mr. Pierre wanted. Last day of the restaurant was Saturday, and he had a party that he invited me to and I went and it was a good party and a lot of fun. Learned a lot. And Randall and I have become friends. And and. And did you guys have a contractual agreement for that? We did. That's okay. We did. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: But the other question, Councilman. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. So, first of all, I guess I want to ask somebody from the planning office whether or not Landmark has looked at this property.
Speaker 1: They did look at it, yes. And it's not located in local landmark district. The building itself is also not designated.
Speaker 2: And the deed was it.
Speaker 6: Identified as a contributing building that was that warranted designation itself, even though it might not be in a historic.
Speaker 2: District.
Speaker 1: I asked that question as well, and their opinion was that the renovation that occurred in the eighties had significantly altered the building to such an extent that it would no longer be considered contributing if it were eligible.
Speaker 6: So even the use of it is not considered as part of that, even though the condition of the property itself has changed?
Speaker 1: That's correct. I don't believe that the use factors into that determination at all. It's just about the character of the structure. Okay.
Speaker 6: And then I just want to ask the property owner a question. So I'm assuming the lease with the previous tenant had.
Speaker 2: Expired.
Speaker 6: And that was why you.
Speaker 2: Worked out the arrangement.
Speaker 1: It was a month to month lease and our obligation to him was 30 day notice.
Speaker 6: Okay. And can you just say what you plan to do with the property?
Speaker 1: We are going to develop and build the 14 unit townhome project seven. Two buildings with seven units each.
Speaker 2: And to do that, you need to.
Speaker 6: Demolish the property.
Speaker 1: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Carrie Ortega. That concludes our speakers and questions. I will close the public hearing and call on council members. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, this this was a really interesting rezoning, as you guys saw in the presentation. From every viewpoint, this past, the planning and it lined up with with all the documents to get approved for the rezoning. But sometimes when we go through rezonings, the piece that we we fail to look at is all of the community aspects. And this certainly became apparent in this rezoning. Every registered neighborhood was on there and they were on board with it. But we didn't really talk to the the folks who come in to Randolph's every Saturday night and Friday night, and this is a viable business. And so Randolph's folks reached out to me and Councilwoman Ortega asked the excellent question and we did have historic Denver. Go and look at the building, see if there is any significance that we could kind of save or landmark. But you also understand that you have to be the owner of the property to do that. There are some ways around that, but obviously you you have to own the property and that didn't work out. And so I really encourage the burners to really talk to Randolph, to figure out a solution, a way that they could kind of come together. And I think in any development, you've got to collaborate with the community in the burners that do that. Randall was able to receive three months and turn around. That's Councilman Lopez at home. He received three months rent. And one of the things he asked us is, was there a location on Welton in five points that we could help him get into? So then we began to meet with the Office of Economic Development, Paul Washington. We looked at Charlie Cousins daughter, Dr. Rene Cousins King property. We also looked at Odell Berry's property and we agreed on a property that we could help them transition into. And OED is helping with some of the renovation. And so what started as really a tough story and a, you know, a rezoning that had a lot of conflict, I think we came around with some solutions and the property owner was great in that they bent over and said, hey, how can we how can we help out ? They are a they're architects. And they really helped with the designs of the new building and things like that. And so really appreciate that. And and going forward, I think in the future when we have these kind of conversations, I think, you know, for CPD and and other folks, a good question to ask is, you know, where are the tenants? What's the terms of the lease, have they been notified and things like that? Because this was a real surprise to the entire community. But we came up with a solution because the owners worked really well and Randall was nimble enough to to help start his business and on Welton. And so I'm glad that we came to a solution and I will be supporting this rezoning and thank you for for trying to save Spurs. I got phone calls from a lot of people who who I didn't get any emails, by the way. School didn't know what he was talking about, but I got phone calls and folks said, you know, I remember pears. I remember when I used to be there and and we felt like it was good enough to to preserve to preserve that history, to still have it in the five points. So it's a good news story.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. And see no other comments. I think we're ready for a roll call.
Speaker 2: Brooks Brown I thought I heard in each right. Lemon Lopez All right. Montero Nevitt I. Ortega Rob Shepherd, madam. President. Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary. Close the voting. That's the results of 12 eyes. The bill is passed. And thanks, everybody. See no other business for this body? This meeting is adjourned. Denver 87.
Speaker 2: Your city, your source.
Speaker 0: Denver eight on TV and online. To stay connected to your community. Your city. Your source.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 2157 Downing Street from PUD 96 to U-MX-3 in Council District 8. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 2157 Downing Street from PUD 96 to U-MX-3 in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-11-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04142014_14-0154
|
Speaker 0: And the target date now for the public hearing and final consideration is May 5th. CPD neglected to send the neighborhood notification out in time, so we had to postpone these. Oh, shoot the messenger. Okay. What do you want? To make your motion to take them out of order? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 134 and Council Bill 155 series of 2014 will be taken out of order. Secondly, it's been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Robb has already made the comments. Madam Secretary, roll call what you were voting on taking them out of order. Rob I Sheppard Brooks hi brown. Hi fights I Herndon can carnage. Lopez Monteiro Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Close of voting, not the results for Vice 12 eyes. They may be taken out of order now. Councilwoman Rah, would you like to make a motion to postpone them? Yes, Madam President. I move that council bills 154 and 155 series of 2014 be postponed with their public hearing until Monday, May 5th. Monday, May 5th. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. It has been moved and seconded. You've already made comments about it. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Rob Shepherd.
Speaker 1: Brooks.
Speaker 0: Hi, Brown. Hi, Fats Herndon. Kenny Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Leavitt Hi. Ortega. Madam President. Hi. Madam Secretary, close to voting nounced the results for Vice 12 ies. These two bills will be taken, will be postponed. Let's go back to bills for a final consideration. I think it was Council Bill 244 and Councilman Councilwoman Foxx said. 244 excuse me. And Councilwoman Fox had called it out. What would you like us to do with this, Councilwoman?
Speaker 3: Please put it on the floor for a vote.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Brown, will you make the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Will you please put Caswell to 44 on the floor for a vote?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I couldn't find the page.
Speaker 0: Hey, Jake, it's two for four.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I moved the council bill to 244. Be place on the floor for final consideration and to pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. This is a goal we discussed last week. Sadie, I. A contract for a market survey and analysis idea is asking the right question.
Speaker 0: Who are our customers?
Speaker 3: But they're paying a premium price to get the answer. They have already admitted that if they were to do follow up surveys, this group would probably be too expensive to do the follow up surveys. And I'm willing to save money right from the beginning.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Fats, are there any other comments? A seeing none, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Fats No. Herndon can eat. Lopez Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt Hi. Ortega No. Rob, I. Sheppard. Brooks. Hi. Brown.
|
Bill
|
Approves a rezoning of 3226 W. 19th Avenue from P.U.D 81 to G-MU-3 in Council District 1. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 3226 W. 19th Avenue from P.U.D 81 to G-MU-3 in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-11-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04142014_13-0956
|
Speaker 0: We won't take a little recess. We do have a required public hearing on Council Bill 956 changing changing the zoning classification for seven 800 East 53rd place 8130 East 56th Avenue and 8900 East 56th Avenue. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must see the council secretary secretary to sign up. I think we'll just stay in our seats and ask those who want to speak to sign up and continue on.
Speaker 3: Go grab some water.
Speaker 0: We did not take a recess, so I don't need to reconvene. We have one required public hearing this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. Our two speakers this evening are very aware of our rules about public speaking, and so I won't go through all of them. But I would ask Councilman Brown to please put Council Bill 956 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, madam.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 956 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: And it has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 956 approves a zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. They may be picked up from the council secretary after 30 days or after the conclusion of any court cases. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents, and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. The public hearing for Council Bill 956 is open and we're ready for the staff report. Mrs. Sarah.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Recently, Sarah, with community planning and development. This is a application to rezone property located at 7000 East 53rd place and 81,089 East 56th Avenue. The current zoning is master plan context rowhouse with a three storey height limit and open space B, which is privately owned open space. The proposal is to change the zoning to master plan context residential mixed use with a five storey height limit. The property is located in northeast Denver in City Council District 11 in the Stapleton statistical neighborhood. It is on the very edge of the city on the northern boundary with Adams County, north of I-70 and the Northfield Shopping District, just southwest of Rocky Mountain Arsenal and west of Central Park Boulevard, east of Quebec Street. It is about 122 acres. It's currently vacant. You'll see in the pictures there is a lot of dirt work with utilities being installed. Property owner is for a city Stapleton. They are requesting this rezoning to continue developing of the residential mixed use land use and again the proposal is to rezone from master plan context rowhouse with a three storey height limit and open space b which is privately held open space to master planned context residential mixed use with a five storey height limit. So the master plan context was actually written for the Stapleton neighborhood. It is intended for areas that are redeveloping over time in phases. And so development takes a variety of different shapes in residential mixed use employment centers, industrial centers, town centers, high density transit. So a wide variety of uses and the mixed use. Five storey residential mixed use zone district is intended for residential mixed use areas. We've already said three times what the residential current zoning is, so it is that row house three story, it is vacant ground. The street pattern going in will be a modified grid. Surrounding buildings are between one and five stories. The residential subdivision to the south is currently under construction and going very fast. And north of 56th Avenue is the Dick's Sporting Goods Arena. So surrounding zoning, we have the mixed use, mixed resident master plan, residential mixed use to the east, to the south. We have a little bit of rowhouse in there. That area will be part of the open space and when the Parks Department is ready, will probably be zoned to open space. We have some industrial to the east city owned warehouse and a post office. So and then south of Northfield Boulevard, some of our old chapter 59 mixed use zoning. As I said before, the site's currently vacant and with utilities under construction, the surrounding land uses you'll see way off to the east some industrial in Adams County. The site itself, a lot of dirt work as utilities go in. On the right, lower picture is the subdivision under construction to the south of the site. On the right, on the left, the post office, the city warehouse. And then, of course, this Dick's Sporting Goods across 56th Avenue. This was a planning board in November of 2013, ludie, in December of 2013. At that point, the property owner asked us to delay filing the ordinance. There was a glitch in transferring some property ownership from the school district to Forest City, and they wanted to wait for that transfer and that's occurred. So we're moving forward. There was public outreach to the affected resident Arnaud's, including the Stapleton United Neighbors, which that just that organization does not currently claim this area. But we just wanted to make sure that they were aware of this zoning and of course notification of this hearing was posted on the property today. We have no public comments on this rezoning. You're aware of the criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The plans that that we are looking at for this property, our current plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Stapleton Development Plan and the North Stapleton General Development Plan, which was adopted in 2012. Staff believes this rezoning is consistent with current Plan 2000, which talks about building a legacy of high quality urban design and stable, attractive neighborhoods and promoting mixed use development. The Blueprint Denver land use concept is single family residential and it is an area of change. The only streets that were in when Blueprint Denver was adopted in 2000 were 56th Avenue and Spruce Streets 56th Avenue in Blueprint. Denver is a mixed use arterial and Spruce Street is an undesignated local street. The Stapleton Development Plan adopted in 1995. This area is in District seven and the land use concept for it is mixed use, residential and an employment, and they call for a town center, a walkable scale and significant outdoor amenities. Now the North Stapleton General Development Plan is the reason that we are doing this rezoning with the movement of the elementary school and high school from the original sites that they were conceived at. We did shift land use around and the North Stapleton GDP. GDP codified that. And so this area is a land use concept of residential mixed use in the GDP. And we did also start talking about some of the streets that would be built in this area. Northfield Boulevard is to be a six lane major arterial. That's the street kind of at the edge of the red circle on the right central. I'm sorry, that's Central Park Boulevard North. Northfield is below where you see the hotels, if you can see down in here. And that's a six lane major arterials Central Park Boulevard is here on the right at the edge of our red circle . And then Spruce Uinta and Wabash are collector streets that will be built in the in the area. So staff believes concludes that this proposed rezoning is consistent with our adopted plans and general development plan. That it will further the uniformity of district regulations and it will further the public health, safety and welfare as it implements our plans . The Justifying Circumstances, Changing Conditions. CPD finds this criteria is met as we are redeveloping our former airport. And we did talk a little earlier about the master plan context and this site being consistent with that and the zoned district intent of a mixed use residential neighborhood. So in conclusion, CPD recommends approval, finding that all criteria are met.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Mr. Cicero. We have. Two people signed up. Mr. GOLIC, Would you like to say a few words?
Speaker 6: Thank you. Madam President, members of council. Good evening. My name is Bob Garlic. My address is 609 South GABLER Street, and that's in Denver here on behalf of four city Stapleton, too, who is the property owner and applicant of this 121 acre site. This is a this is a parcel that we refer to as filing 45. It's part of our numeric system that we use for our subdivisions and for city. If you recall back in February, I think I brought filing 41 in front of you. The impetus and the necessity for this rezoning is that these this filing is part of the stapled North Area General Development Plan, and it's very clear that GDP is matter of fact. It requires it that we rezone this area to match the land use and development patterns within that approved general development plan. Thus, that's why we're in front of you this evening. The proposed more x five zone district is a terrific district. We were more H-3 in the past, but we can we can accomplish our development goals with one zoned district and the mere x has the general building form which allows us to pick up not only single family , row, home and townhome, but also our attached products like walk up apartments, five story apartments, the more five can accomplish. All of that was just that one's own district. So that's the reason we're here, is because of the general development plan. However, it seems like it's a routine rezoning, but it's really not. This is a very important rezoning. We have the Northfield Commercial Center, which has about 1.1 million square feet of development, very similar to the Cherry Creek Mall. But we generate a tiny fraction of the sales tax that the Cherry Creek Mall generates. We need more residential units and we need them near Northfield. And this will put about 790 new units within close proximity of Northfield. So planning boards supported this unanimously and I hope you'll do the same. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Mr. Garlic. Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. I'm Chairman Seiko, the founder and organizer of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, representing poor, working, poor and homeless people. I'm sure you guys already know what I'm going to say before I even said it, because this ain't the first time I've said this. I would be remiss as to not acknowledging Metropolitan State College and its basketball team because it release similarly to this issue. And if you give me a minute to tie it all up. When I was the president of student government, we won the championship was national champions. So we went to the university and we went to the mayor's office, said, Hey, man, we need to be like Chapel Hill and have a Road Runner sign up here. That's named after the street coming off us. The highway. So they know we're here. We're champions, man. And we were even willing to pay for it through our tuition thing. We want to do a tuition thing and increase the thing and see if we can both want to get the signing. Of course, nobody. Nothing. Administration squashed it. And I went over to the mayor of Wellington Webb, and he squashed it because you said the school ain't down for. Why would I be down for it? All right, champions. Acknowledging with proclamations and words that when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, all of your patriotism and loyalty and good accolades go down the drain. There's no excuse for Road Runner's Avenue not to be over there. After what you just told me they did over history. Come on. If this was the University of Colorado Boulder, where he never won nothing since the Orange Bowl.
Speaker 0: Come on. Mr. Sekou, let's bring it to this issue.
Speaker 1: Prior to this, we give these accolades about how we need housing for poor people and blah, blah, blah, blah. But then when it comes down to doing it, we put no pressure on the developers to make this happen. We go along with some half meal measure and some compromise. The tokenism. LA 100 units we're going to put forward is in here for low moderate income people, some Section eight and call that moving toward solving the housing issue. There's hypocrisy in all of this mess, all of it. So let's just start where you can get in, where you can fit in. Try putting a sign over there, recognizing them schools in them students, and then maybe poor people will take you serious because every last one of them come from broke families.
Speaker 0: Okay, that is the last of our speakers questions for the speakers or for the staff. I see. Councilman Lopez, do you have a question?
Speaker 1: Actually, I did. I can pull up the materials on the on the screen, the staff report. Hmm.
Speaker 0: I don't know. Why not? It's to fix that for his wife.
Speaker 3: Was there something you wanted to see?
Speaker 1: I just wanted to see. I know that. And I'm sorry, Mr. Sarah. I know that you. That you went through it on me.
Speaker 5: Okay. There it is.
Speaker 1: I don't see it on here. I can't put up on here, you know. Oh, shoot. Okay. Sorry. Excuse my 30.
Speaker 5: There's no excuse for that one. Oh.
Speaker 1: So I was looking at the context now. The existing context. I'm not too sure what is around the proposed site. And I don't know if it's human society or Mr. Garlic or even Councilman Hernan. I'm kind of filmy and I'm just really trying to.
Speaker 3: I kind of went through this fast, so you see.
Speaker 1: And I'm glad you went through. I just did.
Speaker 3: Pictures I'm referring to.
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 3: I've done it once.
Speaker 1: I was trying to. All right. So so the.
Speaker 3: Top right is way off across Havana. It's in an aurora, actually, an industrial land use the land in between that and the site we're talking about is vacant. Then where you see the red arrow itself in the middle. On the right. Yeah, that's the site we're talking about. It's currently they can although there is a lot of earth work going on with utilities going in. Mm hmm. And then on the on the lower right. Is the subdivision being built now, which is another Stapleton development. It's just north it's just across North Field Boulevard from the shopping center. And then on the left, on the bottom is the post office that's on Spruce Street. Right then above that city, warehouses at 56th and Spruce, and then Dick's Sporting Goods Arena across 56th Avenue.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Sorrell. Mr. Garlic, is that intended for commercial use? And if so, what kind of use? What kind of.
Speaker 6: A is this site intended for commercial, though? This is going to have approximately 800 residential units.
Speaker 5: Okay. And not by no commercial attached.
Speaker 1: To no commercial mixed.
Speaker 6: And no, this is residential only because we're so close to commercial Northfield commercial development just to the south of us. Okay.
Speaker 5: And the only reason I ask that is because I know it's a touchy situation with the other counties. It might as well take advantage of it.
Speaker 6: Oh, we have a we have a lot of room. Keep in mind, this is a small area of that GDP and we have a lot of room for more commercial development, as well as the 1.2 million square feet that's there now.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. DA.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega, if you have a question. Yes. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Mr. Cohen, can you tell me what happened to the school site? So where was the school.
Speaker 0: Site and where.
Speaker 3: Where is it now going to be? Because I know they're in the middle of this, in the middle of building a new school. It was part of the last bond issue. And I don't know if this is where that school was supposed to be. So can you help me understand a little bit more about those dynamics?
Speaker 6: Sure. If you pull up the let's see.
Speaker 3: Hide it.
Speaker 6: The school said, I'll tell you where it's been relocated to. It's moved from the location to Therese is going to show you to 56th and Central Park Boulevard, so about a half a mile to the east. So a roughly 20 acre site, the two sites.
Speaker 1: That's true. That's the new one. Yeah.
Speaker 3: This is for a high school, right? Okay. So this is the land use plan from for a city you see next to 56th Avenue where I have the cursor. That's the new high school that has actually been in the news over financing lately. And the way that it is going to go in or where it was proposed before it's going to go in. Okay. And then below that, where I have the cursor now is the new elementary school. And originally actually if we go up a little bit, well, maybe where the zoning.
Speaker 1: Is.
Speaker 3: Start there where it says my three there, that was the high school site. And then down below it was the elementary school under the old general development plan. So with this new concept, schools have moved a little in, land use shifted around. So that's why we needed to rezone.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then my next.
Speaker 3: Question is about affordable housing and what is the expectation for this particular area? I think Bob can maybe answer that better than I. What I do know about affordable housing at Stapleton is that they have their own development agreement with the city. They are required to build a certain amount, and Bob probably knows more detail than I.
Speaker 6: Think of the 781 units. 80 will be affordable.
Speaker 3: And this are these expected to be all rental or will some of these be expected to be for sale units as well? Do we know?
Speaker 6: I don't know. But I think they're going to be for sale. But don't lock me into that. I think they're going to be for sale units.
Speaker 3: So out of 797, 80. Okay. 80 of them will be affordable.
Speaker 1: Right. 10%.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Are you finished with your questions, Councilman Ortega? Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. Kind of an odd question for you, Teresa, but this is one statistical neighborhood, all of Stapleton, which when it was previously not yet developed or even now when we started south of, I think it might have made sense. But does the city have plans to divide it into two statistical neighborhoods? Eventually it means it is anomalously larger than many of you know. We also have a couple other large ones in far northeast. But I was just curious whether you mentioned the R.A., which, of course, Arnaud's and registered neighborhood organizations and statistical neighborhoods do not need to be doing the same thing. But I was just thinking about for our own statistical purposes, in keeping track of it, just a very, very large area.
Speaker 3: Probably be revisited once it's all built out. Currently it's such a large swath of vacant land, but just going gangbusters and building. I was shocked actually, and going out and taking pictures that how much is already built north of Northfield Boulevard. Yeah. So I can envision that once the population is all there that we might have to take another look at the statistical neighborhood because it is all based on the taxes that which are the cash. I never know what he stands for, but the Dr. come units of population that we all add together and I imagine in at least 2010 we are not in 2020 we take another look at at the statistical neighborhood boundaries.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Herndon, you had a question, Madam President.
Speaker 1: I was I was going to respond to Councilman, can you just go?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: We said I responded the deputy nine neighbors hadn't taken effect, taken control of this area that we're talking about right now. But that's just because it's an empty field. However, the plot of development that's below that, the Conservatory Green Neighborhood, Stapleton, the United Neighbors does have block captains, and they're taking people of those community as a part of that registered neighborhood organization. So realizing that, it's my understanding that Sun will represent all of Stapleton when the overall population and overall development is complete, it's approximately 30,000 same population as my fellow, same as Green Valley Ranch. And in both of those neighborhoods, they're all one statistical neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Okay. That looks like all the questions. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for comments from council members. Councilman Herndon, would you have a comment?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, thank you for the afternoon. I think we spoke really well about the reasons for the rezoning, and I appreciate my colleagues asking about affordable housing. If you're not aware, Poor City has a 10% requirement in their development. So with the 790 plus units and 8080 will be planned to be affordable. That is with them achieving that goal. They are a little behind now, so they are going to need to keep up. But I'm happy to know that that's something that they are planning and they're moving forward with. I certainly urge my colleagues to support this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon. I see no other comments if I look down. Okay, it looks like we're ready for the roll call vote.
Speaker 1: Herndon I.
Speaker 0: Can eat. LOPEZ All right. Montero.
Speaker 1: Nevitt Hi.
Speaker 0: Ortega I'm Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. Hi. Fights. Hi, Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Close to voting. Announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The bill does pass on Monday, May 12th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 267, chaining changing the zoning classification for 4300 Warren Avenue and 4275 11th Avenue. Any protests against Council Bill 267 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, May 5th, 2014. And seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 7800 East 53rd Place, 8130 East 56th Avenue and 8900 East 56th Avenue.
(LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Changes the zoning classification from M-RH-3/OS-B (Master Planned context, Row House, 3 stories max./Open Space context, recreation) to M-RX-5 (Mater Planned context, Residential Mixed Use, 5 stories max.) for property located at approximately 7800 E. 53rd Pl. and 8130 and 8900 E. 56th Ave. in Council District 11. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-13.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04072014_14-0246
|
Speaker 4: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 5: None. Madam President.
Speaker 4: Thank you. We do have three proclamations this evening, and I will call on Councilman Brooks to read the first one. Number 246. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. This is proclamation number 246, recognizing April 2014 as Fair Housing Month. Whereas the year 2014 marks the 46th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Title eight of Civil Rights Act and 1968, as amended. And. WHEREAS, The Civil Rights Act of 1968 of the Colorado Fair Housing Law and the Denver Housing Law guarantees that housing in Denver and throughout the United States of America should be made available to all citizens without regard for race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, familiar status, gender variance, marital status, ancestry, creed, military status , or physical or mental disability. And. Whereas, in the fall of 2013, the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center conducted an investigation into fair housing compliance by rental property owners throughout Metro Denver area. And. WHEREAS, the Metro Fair Housing Center Release Access denied a report on rental housing discrimination in Denver metro area on February 5th, 2014. And. WHEREAS, Evidence shows that even 45 years after the Fair Housing Act was passed, people of color and families with children in Denver are still discriminated against in a very high rate. The investigation found African-Americans encounter discrimination rate of 67% of the time in search for rental housing. Latinos encounter discrimination and 91% of the time and households without children in the home were treated more favorably than those with children as 73% of the time. And. Whereas, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all and only with the cooperation, commitment and support from the residents of the city and county of Denver. Can barriers to the enjoyment of housing be removed? Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Denver City Council hereby recognizes recognizes Denver Metro Fair Housing Center for their work. Thank you. To promote their housing choice and to eliminate barriers to housing opportunity. Section two. That Denver City Council shares the vision. Of equal housing opportunities for all residents and the city and county of Denver and hereby joins the national celebration of Reclaim in 2014 as Fair Housing Month. Section three of the clerk in the city of the County of Denver Show attests and affixed a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation that the copy be transmitted to the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman wrote Share Motion to Adopt.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Move that proclamation to 46. Be adopted.
Speaker 4: Second, it has been moved and seconded. Comments by counsel. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. This is. It brings me great joy to bring this proclamation forward. And we're going to take a walk, a stroll down memory lane for my younger council colleagues. That's a joke. I'm the youngest I'm the youngest council person up here.
Speaker 4: Not that funny, but oh.
Speaker 0: The impetus for the Fair Housing for Housing Act started in 1966 with the Chicago Housing Movement. And as you know, during this time and it's such an incredible time to be alive, my mom tells me. But King Martin Luther King was an incredible part of this movement. Well, two years later, on April 4th, he died. And the nation who was fighting so hard for civil rights went from peaceful marches to we going to burn this down. And April 5th was not a peaceful day in our country. And luckily, because of prudent President Johnson, he decided to call the House of Representatives and say, we need to do something. We need to do something quick and tender. And five days later, April 10th, they passed the Fair Housing Act for our country, which is an incredible way to get this passed. But sometimes you've got to go by force. I'm excited that our country passed something so incredible, but I'm disheartened to find out the state that we live in today, where 91% of Latinos, nine out of ten who go to rent a housing project will be discriminated against. Six out of ten or 7% of African-Americans will be discriminated against. Seven out of ten of individuals who have children will be discriminated against. There was a report recently about losing ground and and talking about since the civil rights movements, how we have lost ground as a country, but specifically African-Americans and Latinos. And I think that is one of the most important reasons I brought this forward today, is to begin to proclaim what was good and what was right and what was just in this country. And to say, you know what, we will not handle that in Denver. We will set standards that will be different. We will not play those games. And as a council begin to agree that this is not something that we will stand for. And so, you know, on behalf of this council and all of the advocates in the city, we stand behind this proclamation. And we hope that there are apartment complexes. We hope that there are housing regulators who are looking at this and say, you know what? We will not let this stand any longer as well and make sure that they're changing policies within their business and within their organization. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to my colleague for sponsoring this proclamation. It reminds me a little bit of the conversation we had regarding the disadvantaged business ordinance in terms of whether or not there are still barriers that individuals of color, in some cases women face in our society. And in my comments from then, I'm just going to repeat briefly today, which is that it's not that we don't have explicit racism that certainly still exists, but more pervasive is probably unconscious discrimination. So to potential renters come to see my apartment and I just feel more comfortable maybe with the one who looks like me or I just feel more drawn. And so I think it is the next and the last vestiges of of these kinds of discrimination that we are going to have to tackle. And I think the way to do that is really by having a lot of conversation with apartment owners and others about the unconscious ways that those. Kinds of thoughts and feelings come into our decision making. And so we really need to make sure that we're partnering with the Apartment Association and others to really have that conversation directly with the folks who lend and who let housing to make sure that we are really helping folks to identify the ways that these systems. And that's what they are. Right. Still operate in our in our unconscious minds and in our decision making so that we don't have the kinds of numbers that Councilman Brooks described. So I'm supportive and committed to those kinds of conversations. And if there are other ways that we can take that conversation, you know, to the housing providers to help to make that a reality, I'm certainly volunteering my time to to be a part of that effort. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Rona. President, first of all, I want to thank Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. I want to ask that my name be added. I have spent the last 30 years of my life serving on the board of a nonprofit housing development organization whose mission is doing nothing but affordable housing for people who are struggling and challenged to be able to take advantage of the American dream that I think many of us strive for in this city. It is critical that we have an adopted housing plan so that we have clear policy that sets direction for the development community. And tied to that, we have to have dedicated resources that assist in ensuring that we're able to create affordable housing. I commend the administration for having put some money in the 2014 budget for affordable housing, but we need to do that on an ongoing basis to be able to ensure that we have the ability to allow people who want to live in the city to be able to do so. You all know how expensive housing in Denver has become. In my neighborhood, you can't touch anything anymore for less than half a million dollars, which is unheard of in northwest Denver. So I just hope that tonight, the same way we support fair housing, that we will allow the same opportunity of fairness for people to be able to have a voice when we deal with the next proclamation that we'll talk also about various segments of the civil rights effort. So I will be supporting this proclamation tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I think Councilman Ortega really took some of the words out of my mouth and I and it feels good because first, I want to thank Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. And some of the folks that are involved in fair housing on the ground level and in the trenches are here in the in the audience. I want to salute you guys for the work that you do. Hopefully one day this council won't be voting on a proclamation, but will be voting on ordinances that ensure fair housing. I think it's it's a sad day knowing that just a few years ago, so many people of color were losing their homes. When you look at the foreclosures and you look at the roles and who is losing their homes in northeast Denver and in West End Room, it was a lot of people of color. And are they buying back those homes? No. For most of the home sales that are going on, they're not people in color. They lose their home, they lose their status and they lose their residency in this city. And we've seen that because the census data has shown that that's true, that once a minority majority city is now not. And is it because of all that's just the way it is or is because of lack of fair housing opportunity, responsibility, ordinances, policies in some of the areas in Westwood and in Barnum and V Park on the West Side. You can't get a two bedroom for under $1,000. And if you do, the doors don't lock, the windows don't shut. There's a specialist on the floor that has not been taken care of. How do I know this? Because I was in the market for a home. I was a renter two years ago. And going through that process really opened my eyes again. All my life, we had rented. My parents, my family still around the home and. And the different places we would go. We face the same kind of situation. I had to unfortunately revisit that situation. And in looking at places to live, you know. There was clear violations, health and safety that should not you know, that should be addressed. And there was clear lack of responsibility by some of the renters. I mean, some of the landlords or even when you went to go buy a home. Right. There was a clear slide that she would get. And it was I almost felt like an inspector because every time I would visit it and I'd find out about these things, I'd go turn them in after that, because I'm a councilman . They don't know that, but I do. Right. And so because these see, these shouldn't exist, the standard of living should not exist in our city. And we need to have enforcement to make sure that these that these federal laws and state laws and habit warrant availability laws are also enforced. That's fair housing. And, you know, it's one it's so I love being able to to celebrate this and say, hey, guys, let's let's make sure that there's no discrimination in housing. Let's make sure that these are values that we that we get behind. I mean, absolutely support this proclamation wholeheartedly. I want to take this further. Denver has not passed a housing plan yet. We still block out affordable housing. We still back when we talk about things like that, small, like anything with the with the public public sector meddling with the private sector business. Right. I think we have to take it a step further. There is other cities and municipalities that have that have protected the the weak in their city. And folks that do not have with ordinances that prohibit any kind of discrimination like this or that go even further and ensure that there are units available. So I you know, my hat's off to Councilman Brooks for for sponsoring this proclamation. I look forward to seeing some ordinances in the near future. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I just mentioned earlier in 1988, the Federal Fair Housing Act was amended to include protections for families and for children. Yet, according to the audit results that were talked about, the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center, families with children can expect to encounter discrimination in their housing search. 73% of the time, when people experience illegal housing discrimination, it is not only their right to live where they choose. It also affects access to quality housing. And it provides it lacks access to quality education, employment opportunities, fresh food shopping, recreation, public service, public services, and the opportunity to live in an integrated society. I also support this proclamation that is very timely. Last Friday we had a retreat, all of us Denver City Council members, and there was a vigorous conversation about affordable housing and how it's a priority for this body of decision makers. I also I also at this point want to mention that I've been very fortunate to be able to work with organizations like New Said in Northeast Housing, Habitat for Humanity, del Norte, the the Denver Housing Authority. And most recently, there was a press conference and a colossal effort to implement the Neighborhood Lift Project. So I also support this, and by no means in my acquiescing that we have little work to do. We have a lot of work to do. But thank you, Councilman Brooks, for bringing this to our attention. And thank you for all of the providers that are in the trenches every day. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Sheperd.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I also would like to offer my thanks to Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. I think my comments my colleagues have made many excellent comments tonight, so I don't really feel the need to repeat those. But I would like to communicate to Madam Secretary, by the way. Very nice to see you, Kelly. Welcome back to enter my name in the record as a co-sponsor of this as well. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. I also want to thank Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. When I was a graduate student in Denver a lot of years ago, about 1970, I had an African-American friend who went to an apartment house next to mine and looking for a place. And they said it was already rented. And I said, let me go and ask that same question. And sure enough, it wasn't rented when I asked for it and we turned him in. But one would hope that that would be ancient history. And it. Makes me very sad that we're still facing those sorts of things. And I'm glad that you brought this forward, that we bring it to light. I'm glad for the people who are working so hard on this. I think people need to know how prevalent this is, when it should have been behind us many years ago. Thank you again. I see that my name isn't on here either, but I'd like to add my name to that. Okay. I think we're ready for the vote. Madam secretary.
Speaker 5: Brooks brown, fox. I. Herndon. Can each i. Lehman. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Madam President, I.
Speaker 4: Councilman Herndon, Fats and Lopez.
Speaker 1: The friends or I should. That's an issue.
Speaker 4: Here. You've got a screen issue. I bet you voted either. Yes, Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: 13 eyes.
Speaker 4: 13 eyes. The proclamation passes. Councilman Brooks, is there somebody you'd like to invite up to the podium?
Speaker 0: Well, there's a lot. This has been said by a couple of councilmembers. There's a lot of folks in the audience who've done some great work in the housing community. But I'll just call up a couple. Leslie Lewis and Arturo Alvarado.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. My name is Leslie Lewis, and I co-chair the Denver African-American Commission. The commission would like to thank council members and each council member for sponsoring the Fair Housing Proclamation. As you know, our commission, a part of our.
Speaker 5: Mission, is to be an advocate for our community. The commission serves as a bridge.
Speaker 2: Between the African American Commission and policymakers and engages in responsible activism for the community. After reading the Housing Discrimination Report, the Commission knew we had to bring more awareness to this issue. We understand that many Denver citizens are facing challenges with housing discrimination, yet many still are not aware of where they can. Where their rights are. How to fight it. And some aren't even aware that they're being discriminated against. To bring more awareness to the housing discrimination and recognizing April as Fair Housing Month, the Commission has collaborated with the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center and Denver Anti-Discrimination Office to bring more awareness through providing public service announcement posters at local libraries, recreation centers and our local neighborhood newspapers, such as the Five Points News.
Speaker 5: Our goal is to make sure.
Speaker 2: All of our citizens who experience or excuse me, any citizen who experiences discrimination know where to find help. We will continue to shed light on this issue. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name's Arturo Alvarado. I'm the executive director of the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center. The Denver Metro Fair Housing Center opened in October of 2012, and on behalf of our the DMF Agency Board of Directors and Staff present today a great mekonnen who's our board president. Board members Veronica Barela and Pastor Robert Martin. And one of our staff members, Kate Quillen, who's a fair housing specialist. We would like to thank Councilman Elvis Brooks, the Darius Smith with the Antidiscrimination Office, Debra Bottle Sin and the mayor's African-American commission for working together to bring this proclamation forward to the council. Further, thank you, Councilman Elvis Burks, for sponsoring the bill and all the co-sponsors and the full council for recognizing the valued work the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center performs to help all communities become more inclusive and joining in the national celebration of Fair Housing Month. It is our hope that our work brings about awareness in the community, about fair housing rights and responsibilities, and the value of integrated communities that are reports and information shared with the public can be used as tools to guide discussion and public policy. The FHC works to eliminate housing discrimination and promote housing choice for all people. The Denver Metro Fair Housing Center looks forward to working with the city and county, city and county of Denver, the mayor's African-American Commission and the anti-discrimination office and as well as the community as a whole to achieve these goals. Please remember the fair housing is a right that we all share and that we all should use. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Councilman Brooks, you had a comment.
Speaker 0: You know, I just wanted to I know Arturo mentioned some of the individuals who've been helping out. But if you have been standing in the gap for those who have been disfranchized for fair housing, can you can you just stand up and be recognized?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing April 2014 as "Fair Housing Month". A proclamation proclaiming Apil 2014 as "Fair Housing Month".
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04072014_14-0288
|
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. We have a second proclamation, proclamation number 288 that I have the honor of reading, which is recognizing the 10th annual Doors Open Denver event, April 12th and 13th. Whereas the beautiful city of Denver has a proud legacy of a variety of historic and contemporary architecture in its civic, commercial and private structures. And. Whereas, these buildings, their architecture, design, history and place in the city deserve to be recognized by a citizenry. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Architectural Foundation invites the public to attend the 10th annual doors open Denver and visit behind the scenes, learn the history of and tour more than 60 buildings, many not generally open to the public. And. Whereas, the 2014 theme is Celebrate Neighborhood Architecture. But participating sites free and open to the public include city, state and federal buildings buildings made of shipping containers, historic schools and mansions, gothic churches and new and repurposed buildings built green and sustainable enough to win LEED certification. And. Whereas, Doors Open Denver includes tours conducted by experts biking and walking tours. Architecture one on one, a photography contest, historic photo exhibits and other events free to the public. Whereas information, maps and sign up for guided tours and access to some specific buildings will all be available at the doors open Denver headquarters in the beautiful new white marble lobby at 1801 California Street. During this two day event, celebrating historic, new and innovative Denver architecture. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, that Section one, the Council hereby recognizes the 10th annual Doors Open Denver event and encourages the public to take advantage of this opportunity made possible by the Denver Architecture Foundation. Many generous sponsors, volunteers and building owners and section to the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Ted Hulsey Denver Architectural Foundation and I will so move that the proclamation be adopted. Second we have a second comments. I'll just let my other council members speak first. Councilman Lehman.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Madam President. As a person.
Speaker 7: Who has gone to doors open Denver.
Speaker 2: Numerous times, I just want to share with you that this is an.
Speaker 6: Incredible experience to get to know not.
Speaker 2: Only your.
Speaker 4: City, but, you know, have you ever passed a building.
Speaker 6: At the courthouse.
Speaker 7: And say.
Speaker 2: I'd really like to go in and see that, but.
Speaker 8: I don't want to go there because I've got to go to court or.
Speaker 6: A house or a bed and breakfast or just anything. And in.
Speaker 8: Addition to being able to just go.
Speaker 4: Into those buildings.
Speaker 6: And just look around and come out, there's a whole series of wonderful tours that you can take. So I'd encourage each.
Speaker 2: Of you.
Speaker 6: To go to the website or.
Speaker 7: Pick up a brochure.
Speaker 2: Kind of plan out your day.
Speaker 4: Go down and get your ticket if you want a.
Speaker 2: Personal.
Speaker 7: Tour.
Speaker 4: And just spend one of those days seeing.
Speaker 6: Some pieces of Denver that you would have.
Speaker 4: Always wanted to see.
Speaker 8: Now's your chance.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. I just want to encourage everybody to do it, too. It's a wonderful experience. And you even get to be outside when you're not inside the buildings and you learn about a kind of art that we don't often get to know about. And sometimes it's not as accessible to us who don't know very much about art. But this is an a wonderful opportunity to take a look at the architecture of Denver, to appreciate the architecture of Denver, and to learn so much about why a building looks a certain way. Why is it placed there? What is it about this building? I know I like it, but what is it that I like about this building? It's a wonderful experience, and I thank you very much for putting putting it on every year. Okay. I think we're ready for the vote. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Madam President. Hi, Brooks. Hi, Brown. Hi, Fats. I Herndon. I can eat. Lemon Hi, Lopez. Monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob. Hi, Shepherd.
Speaker 4: Oh. Okay. There it is. Madam Secretary, close the voting, announce the results of 12 eyes. The proclamation does pass. I'd like to invite up to the podium Ted Halsey with DLR Group and chairman of the Denver Architectural Foundation, and Britt Probst with Davis Partnership Architects, Board member of the Denver Architectural Foundation and Chairman of the Door Open . Denver Doors Open Denver 2014 Planning Committee.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Ted Hall's, the chairman of the Denver Architectural Foundation. We're just delighted to be here tonight. Thank you for supporting us and helping us over the last ten years. This is another year you're helping us. We're delighted to have your help and it's just a bunch of fun. And honestly, I think that's what we're going to have this weekend and we really look forward to all of you being here. The mission statement for the Denver Architectural Foundation is to raise public awareness about Denver's architecture and understand its impact on our lives. And that's really what we're out to do indoors. Open Denver is probably one of our premier events. We have another one we do each year, which is an educational project. But tonight we want to talk to you about that. We have a great board and full support of the board for this event. I'd like them just to stand up the folks that are here from the board, please, just to be recognized. And we are just delighted for that and thank you for being here. And I want to turn it over to our chair and let him tell you a little bit about the event for this year.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Ted. Well, Councilwoman Lehman did a great job of telling you a little bit about our events. So I'm just going to tell you that is this weekend, Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., there'll be more than 60 buildings, some of them public buildings, some of them buildings you wouldn't normally be able to get into that will be open for your own self-guided tours or also expert tours. There'll be more than 100 expert tours given this weekend by people who really understand the buildings or the spaces that they are giving you a lot of information on. Come down to the headquarters at 1801 California to sign up for the tours and get a feeling for the overall event. In yesterday's Denver Post, there was an insert in the newspaper with all the sites and information. Also, if you get the New York Times, there was an insert in yesterday's New York Times. And lastly, there's a great website that we owe the city a great deal of. Thanks for helping set up the website, which is new this year. WW W Doors Open Denver Dawg and that will tell you everything about the event. How to make it work for you. We're expecting a big turnout this year. Thanks again to the city for all your help in the last ten years of putting this on. And we look forward to continuing it.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the 10th Annual Doors OPEN Denver event on April 12 and 13.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04012014_14-0277
|
Speaker 2: Very much for being a great.
Speaker 1: Partner in city community building. We appreciate it. Thank you. We have a second proclamation this evening, proclamation number 277. And I will call on Councilman Lopez to read the proclamation.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam President, I wanted to read well, will re council proclamation 277 series of 2014, which is a proclamation recognizing April as Help Kids Thrive Child Abuse Prevention Month. Whereas the city and county of Denver joins businesses, government agencies, nonprofits and dozens of other organizations across the state are observing April as Help Kids Thrive Child Abuse Prevention Month. And. Whereas, Blue ribbons and pinwheel gardens, which you'll see like these are on display throughout the city, signify the importance of keeping families stable, helping kids thrive, and upholding a strong community. And. Whereas, we think child care providers, doctors, nurses, parents, police officers, social workers, teachers along with all organizations and people who dedicate their lives to caring for and protecting children. And. Whereas, as we prepare our children for the future, by keeping them active and engaged, giving them access to the programs and resources they need no matter what their family station in life is. And. Whereas, children have the right to thrive, live and grow to their full potential. And. Whereas, we encourage families to surround themselves with a strong supportive system comprised of friends, loved ones and neighbors, and remember to learn on them. Sorry, and remember to lean on them when times get tough. And whereas we must come together as we must come together to keep children safe, ensuring that children's voices are heard by all, and extending a helping hand to children and families in need. And. Whereas, a Denver department of. Human Services extends a helping hand to the children and families in need by offering free parenting workshops during the month of April. And. Whereas, we ask all Denver residents to observe this month with programs and activities to help kids thrive, keep families stable, and support a healthy community in a world class city where everyone matters. Now, therefore, be a proclaim, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one of the Denver City Council proclaimed proclaims April 2014 as Help Kids Thrive. Child Abuse Prevention Month in the City and County of Denver. Section two that the clerk and that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to the Denver Department of Human Services.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council proclamation to 77 series of 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. It's it's a great honor to be able to read this. And also because we are seeing these pop up all over the place. And when it's a windy day like today, you see these all over and you know, they're just a symbol. It's a symbol of the dedication and it's a symbol of the responsibility that we have as a community to help prevent child abuse. Right. It's not just up to social workers in schools. It's not just up to human care, human services caseworkers. It's up to every single one of us to help prevent this. You know, our children our children have a real beautiful future. Every single one of them in our city. And they have the potential to do anything they want to do, no matter where they come from, what the status of their families is. They just need the environment to allow them to grow, to allow them to be great human beings, to not live in cruelty, to not live with abuse, not be taken advantage of, but to have that innocence. We all know that childhood innocence that needs to be protected, it must be protected. And the only way it's going to be protected is when all of us, all of us take that responsibility. I know sometimes, you know, people in communities, you see kids running around, you know, without clothes or just a diaper running around in the front yard. He oh, man, that's not my kid. Thank God that's not my kid. Well, you as a community member have a responsibility. If something if there's abuse going on, if there's some kids getting yelled at, or if there's all kinds of different abuses going on and you know of it, you need to ask yourself, would you let your own kids go through that? Would you have been where you are today if somebody well, if somebody didn't support you or if somebody didn't do the right thing. And I think our kids and our kids have that right to self-determination, have that right to their future, and we have to protect that. And so that's why, you know, I did you know, I'm honored to read this proclamation. I've read this proclamation in the past because I know that the Denver Department of Human Services is a stellar department. It is the best in the state. And our caseworkers and our employees and all our management staff and everybody who works with the Denver Department of Human Services is a public servant, a dedicated public servant on a daily basis. They help change people's lives, helps save lives. They help turn lives around. And it's a very hard job because, as you know, Madam President, we do not have the budget like we used to for the down for the Department of Human Services. It is a fraction of what it used to be, but the caseload is immense. It's big. It's it's grown leaps and bounds, especially during the recession when our budget took a nosedive. Reports of child abuse and reports of different cases skyrocketed. And I think, you know, it's up to us as a city and this is where our county duties come in. And you say city and county in Denver, it's up to us to be able to fight for these families and fight for the folks and make sure the folks that are taking care of these families are also taken care of. Imagine having to deal case and case after case after case and go home and try to live a somewhat happy life and not think about everything you've heard right and not feel that support. So I think it's really honorable that representatives from the department are here. And so thank you very much. I really loved being able to read this proclamation.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Lopez. Thank you for bringing this forward. I don't think there's much more that I can add. I think he was very eloquent in his comments. I would just ask that my name be added. And lastly, I just want to thank the social workers or caseworkers from Denver Human Services who deal with this issue day in and day out with the many families whose cases come through their doors. And as Councilman Lopez said, it is a tough job. But I think having worked there at the department, I know our staff at the Department of Human Services to be dedicated and to really work towards solving these situations where the safety of the children is number one. So thank you for the work that you all do. I see Penny May is in the audience and will probably be addressing this in a minute, but this is critically important work for our entire community. So thank you for what you do.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. I take it, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Madam President, I forgot to acknowledge that Councilman Albert Brooks co-sponsored the proclamation. I wanted to make sure that he was recognized for that as well, too. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Madam Secretary Calderon.
Speaker 2: Lopez. All right. Montero. Nevett. I. Ortega. I. Rob i. Brown. I thought I heard him. Can I. Layman Hi, Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, closed the voting unaccountable and got it close to voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilman Lopez, is there somebody you'd like to bring up to the podium?
Speaker 5: Yes. I'd like to bring up our manager of the Department of Human Services. Miss Penny, me and anybody else. Who would you like to bring up? Penny?
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Madam President, Councilman Lopez and Councilmember Silver for supporting our proclamation for April. This year's campaign is help kids thrive, and we can all help kids thrive. We all play a part in that. So we're partnering with Pinwheels for Prevention Colorado, the Pepsi Center, Focus Points, Resource Center and many other community partners to heighten awareness, to help strengthen families and our community as we help kids thrive. This this year and this month, part of our campaign includes five love and logic parenting seminars that will be held at our east, building their free of charge. They'll be child care, and they'll provide simple.
Speaker 3: Solutions and techniques to.
Speaker 1: Help parents with kids of all ages. We also will have our signature pinwheels for prevention gardens that libraries, fire stations, various city buildings, the Pepsi Center, businesses and community organizations. This year we've included with the pinwheel, a postcard and a magnet with five ways to help kids thrive. Tomorrow will be kicking off this month at the Focus Point's Family Resource Center with the mayor and Councilwoman Monteiro. We invite any of you who would like to join us at 130 to be there. They'll be state representatives and the Denver district attorney's office and other community partners. And then we're going to close out the month with an event at Hamilton Elementary School where the children have created giant pinwheels. I'm not sure what giant means, but we'll find out. And that will help us close out our month. So if any of you are interested or if you need more pinwheels, please feel free to contact us. I'd also like to thank our communications director, Anna, Master Cheryl for accompany me tonight, as well as Joe Homer, our division director for Child Welfare. So thank you. Thank you very much, Ms.. May, and thank you for all you do for the children of Denver. That that's the end of our proclamations and we will move on to resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing April as “HELP KIDS THRIVE - CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH”. A proclamation recognizing April as “HELP KIDS THRIVE - CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH”.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04012014_14-0115
|
Speaker 1: Councilman Herndon, will you please put count 115 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 115 to 2014 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The public hearing for Council Bill 115 is open. May we have the staff report? Miss us. Thank you. Madam President, members of council. My name is Deirdre Rose with Community Planning and Development here with application number two 2013 i000234 7155 is 36th Avenue and this is specifically an 18,000 square foot portion of the rear of what is really a larger lot. The rezoning proposals to go from OSA, which is an open space, a category typically reserved for publicly maintained and owned public lands to as a mixed three or suburban mixed use three story. This is in Council District 11, just west of Quebec Street in Councilman Herndon's district. And as I mentioned, is a very small strip of land along the Quebec corridor where there are commercial hotel development that was associated with Stapleton Airport. This property is just to the west of that. Here's a picture of the property just to give you a full appreciation for what we're doing here. The property abuts an alley that serves Pontiac Street just to the west. And the status of the property is that it was sold to the applicant milk and hospitality, and they're the owners of the hotel just to the east of the property. There were restrictions on this property prior to it going for sale to use as open space and they were removed by prior agreement by the former owner. That open space agreement was specific to when the Denver Airport associates, the two owners ago on the property and reserved the area as an open space buffer in agreement with the neighborhood. The Greater Park Hill Neighborhood Association. That neighborhood association was then deeded the property and held the property and never maintained it as open space, never had the funding to do that and then sold the property to the applicant for this rezoning to go forward. It was never under city and county of Denver parks, maintenance or ownership and OSA is not a typical zoning for a property in that situation. The request is to rezone it to us. Annex three a suburban mixed use three storey, which is the same zoning as on the parcel for the hotel just to the east. The hotel is zoned as Annex three. The residential to the west is ESU. RDX, that's urban edge single unit D. So that is a typical corridor, commercial corridor condition, where you have a residential neighborhood adjacent to a commercial corridor and then to the north is office development. Under the industrial mixed use categories, there is quite a different diverse array of context in this area. The building form and scale around this site, I showed you the site itself, but then there are single storey homes as well as the office development to the north. Again, it's fairly low scale as far as the process is to has out a ruling on February 25th and is it a city council today. Regarding public outreach, as I mentioned, the Greater Park Hill Neighborhood Association, per community association did sell the property to the applicant and did remove the deed restriction for open space. So we did not receive any other comments from any other associations. We have reviewed this zoning consistent with our review criteria, including consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of our district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context on district and intent. With regard to neighborhood plans, I'll quickly go through these because really this is a matter of ensuring that this slice of property has the same zoning as the proper. That is owned by the same owner to the east. But regarding comprehensive plan, there are typical strategies regarding urban infill development and consistency with zoning, encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. In order to further develop this property at any point to use this property, it would have to have the same zoning as a hotel site to the east, whatever it may become in the future. With regard to Blueprint Denver, this is also an interesting piece of information. This is an area of stability along this commercial corridor. It has never been residential along the commercial corridor, but it is designated as an area of stability where changes can occur and they just don't happen on quite as large an impact as areas of change. Let's say Stapleton, just to the east of Quebec, on the other side. With regard to streets 36th Avenue and 38th are both designated local and industrial collectors. And in Quebec Street is a commercial arterial. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan does not specifically talk to the site, but along the Quebec Street corridor. There are descriptions of the sub area in which the site is located, talking about it being framed by airport, hotels and other industrial businesses, and that with the economic development goal being five to develop vacant land in a way that is compatible with the character and density of the surrounding business and neighborhoods. And the Stapleton perimeter plan designates the property as underutilized land, but doesn't have any specific recommendations with regard to justice. Justifying circumstances of explain those in the preceding discussion that the property is really no longer considered or ever managed as open space at this time. And a deed restriction on the use was removed by the former owners in 2012. Therefore, current zoning is generally reserved for publicly maintained parks in open space, and a new zone district needs to be assigned with regard to neighborhood context, zoning and intent. Within the suburban neighborhood context, it is being proposed to have the same zoning as the property to the east, capturing current conditions on the commercial sites and should it ever be developed, would be developed part and parcel with that larger site. With that, CPD recommends approval based on the finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ose. Two speakers. The Mr. Mallory would like to come to the podium and speak or know. You don't. You don't have to know, okay? You're just here for questions if we have them. Okay. Thank you very much. Sekou.
Speaker 4: Yes. Chairman Sekou Black Collective Movement, self-defense, representing poor, working for homeless people. First of all, it's my honor to be here today in support of this. The only change. It may seem small and trivial, and we're trying to put together some consistency in terms of how these different areas have some consistency in terms of zoning for possibilities of development and from looking at the picture. Most folks would think that what you're going to do with this I mean, this analogy does and real do this. I know this man. And I've had homeless people stay in his hotel. He's been more than kind in embracing us and helping us out to find emergency housing for them. When it's like going through a bunch of loops and circles and things to get it done through the city, especially on emergency thing. And so he's been there for us, and we hope that you will approve the zoning change because just thinking about it, it would be an excellent spot to teach poor people how to grow some food. I mean, what better place to do it? And it's already set up in a row. So it's almost like we decided to plant some cotton and we'd be right there with it and maybe get a shirt out to do that. But it gives us a chance to do something and be active and keep the neighborhood looking good. And there's a lot of possibilities for it. If we just take this thinking out the box and I'll be sharing these ideas with my friends here, and I would like to personally thank you for all the work that you've done. And my brother, who lived at the hotel, who Pastor Jerry Stephens. We spent a lot of time at that pool together, figuring out how to keep me from ended up going to jail by coming down here every week. So thank you very much for your time and I hope you guys support this donation.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's the last of our speakers. Are there questions from council? And seeing none. Well, we'd have one. There is one councilman. Never just in the next.
Speaker 4: Or maybe two early. Thank you, Madam President. I just. I can't resist asking a question. So is this a it couldn't quite see it on the the display. Is this on the other side of the alley from the existing or is it on the same side of the alley as the existing smx3?
Speaker 1: It is on the same side.
Speaker 4: It's on the same side of the alley. Right.
Speaker 1: If you if you look at there's a zoning picture in your staff report as well, I guess you don't have the. But just to the east of the site is that some x three that goes north and south between 38th and just south of 36.
Speaker 4: So if you so if you go from oh, now, that didn't make sense. Go back in you reach the the this weird osa strip before you get to the alley.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 4: Strip. And then you get to the alley. So rezoning this strange strip that's been reserved next to the alley. Right. Got it. Okay. So that was sort of confusing me. And then the neighborhood association owned this piece. The third.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The the former owner, Denver Airport Associates, I imagine, has developed many of the hotels or those properties for that commercial development. And in some discussion with the neighborhood for which notes, we could not find anything on it. But according to the Greater Park Hill Neighborhood Association reps of today, that it had been granted to their neighborhood association as an open space buffer from the commercial development. And then they were provided the property and the responsibility of maintaining it and then were cited for not maintaining it. Because if you look at the property and you look at the picture, it's doesn't make sense that it's the property they would be maintaining. It actually looks like it belongs to the hotel. And so now with it under other ownership, actually the current owner is responsible and has been responsible for maintaining that. So yeah, it was. And then the Denver Airport Associates actually removed the restriction for the Greater Park Hill Neighborhood Association in order for them to sell it so that.
Speaker 4: It wouldn't happen. Oh, I see. So the airport association sold or gave it to the neighborhood association with the Covenant and then had to remove the covenants so the neighborhood association could then sell it to the. Thank you. The current owner got it. Yes. Wow. That must be the only occasion of a neighborhood association owning a big chunk of property. Anyway, that's. I'm sorry. This is just mere curiosity. I look forward to voting in favor of this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Nevitt. And see no other questions. I'll close a public hearing. Ask for comments from council members. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. As Councilman Levitt said, this is a bit peculiar, but I think we're certainly fixing the dilemma. I've met with the owner as well as the Register Neighborhood Organization, and you would be surprised at the costs it takes to maintain that plot. And they were certainly losing money funds doing this. And this is certainly, as most people realize, assumed it belonged to the the hotel as well. So it's happy that all parties involved were really happy with this. And I certainly would encourage my colleagues to support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And seeing no other comments, i will ask for Raquel Herndon.
Speaker 2: I can eat Lemon Lopez Montero by Nevitt Ortega by Rob Wright. Brown Fats.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, close to voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: Tonight.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes. The bill passes on Monday, April 28th. Council will hold a required public hearing council bill 245 Changing the class zoning classification of 24 2024, 30, 24, 42, 24, 60 and 2460 through to 2490. South University Boulevard. Any protests against Council Bill 245 must be filed with the council officers no later than noon on Monday, April 21st, 2014. And seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Denver ATV.
Speaker 2: Your city, your source.
Speaker 0: Denver eight on TV and online. To stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
Changes the zoning classification from OS-A (Open Space context, Public Parks) to S-MX-3 (Suburban context, Mixed Use, 3-story max.) of 7155 E. 36th Ave. Rear to conform to adjacent zoning in Council District 11. Changes the zoning classification from OS-A (Open Space context, Public Parks) to S-MX-3 (Suburban context, Mixed Use, 3-story max.) of 7155 E. 36th Ave. Rear to conform to adjacent zoning in Council District 11. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-18-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03242014_14-0145
|
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Layman, will you read the motions this evening?
Speaker 4: I will.
Speaker 1: Will you please put Council Bill 145 on the floor?
Speaker 4: I move that council. Be 14, dash 145, be put on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved in. Seconded comments. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank Skye Stewart for providing us additional information on this. This is a rescission and appropriation of funding. And I also want to thank Parks and Recreation for providing additional information on this as well. This is so my concern is about one particular aspect of this, which is the bio retention for the Hinsdale Park site. And I also want to thank Councilwoman Lehman for taking time to talk with me about this issue as well. And part of my reason for bringing this out is if you all remember when the land swap on this property came up, I asked lots of questions and I brought some of the materials from those questions that I asked related to the drainage. So there were two issues related to drainage on this property. One was that the city of Denver made a commitment to spend $3.4 million to take an open channel and to pipe that. And that was not part of the costs of the land swap. And then the other issue was there was a retention pond on the site that was utilized for drainage that comes off of Havana Street. And in looking at this particular project for this bio retention area, which I understand would be an amenity for young people, particularly the children that will go to that school. Also, from my conversations with Parks and Recreation, it could be utilized by any other youth group. And I think that is a really positive thing that could happen for the for young people and for the citizens of our city. My issue is with the cost and the fact that this bio retention was not discussed as part of the additional cost of doing this project at that site. And I ask questions about the the retention pond that was on site that was going to be impacted as a result of the school going in there. And in going through this process. I remember asking questions about whether or not the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was going to have to sign off on things because that retention pond was going to be affected as a result of this project moving forward. And. I just I have heartburn with Denver spending an additional $400,000. And so DPS will contribute 203,000 and the city of Denver will spend $406,500 to make this retention fund happen. And I understand that it is in part a regional retention where others can, I guess, get credits towards contributing towards this plan. I don't really understand exactly how that works. I know that initially the site that was being looked at to be the retention, the regional retention pond was at Heron Pond or in that general vicinity. And for some reason that site just didn't work. I'm assuming maybe it had something to do with some of the contamination from Asarco that's in those soils. But my heartburn is with the cost and the fact that when this project came forward, it was never part of the original big picture that we were asked to vote on. And so unfortunately, that means I have to vote in a way that would impact the other projects that are part of this package. But I have heartburn voting in support of putting more money into something that we already spent 4.3. $4 million on to to address drainage. And to be asked to spend another $400,000. I just don't think it makes sense. It should have been part of the big picture at the time that this project was brought forward. So for those reasons, I will not be voting for this bill tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Since Councilwoman Shepard pulled this out last week, I have gone through some of the same process as Councilwoman Ortega looking at this, because, like Councilwoman Ortega, I had not supported the swap out there, although I admit that was a really difficult decision that all of us faced. And I was concerned about the additional costs. But what is key to me, because we are always investing in our parks at some level. And if it has been determined that DPS in the city are working together on this, what was crucial to me in the cost was that DPS was bearing its fair share and we were bearing our fair share. I would like in and I'm really comfortable with it if it's all on Denver land, and that's a question I've been asking. So I'd like to ask Scott Gilmore to come up to the microphone and talk about the land and how these dollars are different from just the degree that the detention pond and the stormwater project that Councilwoman Ortega referred to it, 3.4 million.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Counsel and Rob, Mr. Gilmore.
Speaker 0: So I brought I brought the map of the area so I could show you guys. Exactly. It's popping up. So when we transferred the land and you see if I can make it a little smaller for you guys.
Speaker 4: That's good.
Speaker 0: And I think he's going to bring around a picture. So if you can look at the image, this area, this is Cherry Creek. This area over here is a banner on the right side of the picture up there. The right side is Havana, and down at the bottom is Geraghty, all the way at the bottom. So right now, the way the land is situated, everything toward the top of the picture, on the on the top side of the red is actually parkland. And so the red is actually part of the land that was transferred to DPS for the school site. That will be where the detention, the bio retention area is built. And and that is actually where the the outdoor education amphitheater that the kids could utilize and, you know, nonprofits and and just people can go down and enjoy being by the creek and sit down and enjoy the red areas where DPS actually they own that at this park at this time. Once this area is built and this is all done, they will actually transfer this land back to us and we won't have to pay for it. So we're actually going to get a half an acre back. The reason we're doing that is because I know Parks and Rec is going to be committed to making sure that this area is managed properly, that the plants are taken care, that the area is growing well, and that we we care for this area as part of this will actually become part of Hensel Park. All the land on the upper part of the the map is now part of designated Hensel Park. This will actually added an additional half acre to that park. So this will be theme park parts land.
Speaker 5: Scott, I didn't let you get to how, how this cast is different from the other. But while we're on the land, is there an IMO you or some guarantee that DPS is willing to transfer that land to us?
Speaker 0: We haven't done a MRU yet, but we've been we've been talking to them and they actually want to transfer the land to us because they know we'll take care of it at least this half acre, because if they don't transfer it to us, they'll be responsible for caring for this. And well, I mean, it's part of the park park part of the bio retention area. So it makes more sense for us just to go ahead and take over management of the whole area. One other thing I wanted to show you. There's a little on the toward the bottom of the map. There's a little rectangular box right on the edge of the bio retention pond that is actually underground vault. That is something that Parks and Rec actually asked public works and DPS that we want at this underground vault. It's a very progressive type thing, but there should have been a four bay. They had a four bay plan to put be put in here, four bays just catch trash. And so it would have just been catching a lot of trash and it would have been a nightmare to maintain and just keep clean. And so what we did was actually have them put into the plan underground vault, which is a big part of the cost of making this work. Right. So I think that was a big thing that Parks and Rec actually requested and that we've got them to buy off on. So.
Speaker 5: Okay. So if I have this right, DPS is of contributing 200,000 plus a little bit to the project, about a third of the cost plus they're contributing half an acre. We're doing the maintenance. I do wish that were spelled out. But can you also address the difference what we're getting in addition to the bio retention or we have another picture and on disk and you might as well show the public.
Speaker 0: There you go. So what what we're getting traditionally, what what would have happened in a in a bio retention area or detention pond? As you just dig it out, you make sure it just drains out or it seeps out or drops into the creek. We really want it somewhere where people could get down to the river and actually do scientific exploration. Getting kids down there with microscopes and getting them down there with, you know, with bug catching nets and actually exploring the river. You could do so many interesting things along this river, along Cherry Creek. You could talk about history. You can talk about gold panning that was done on these creeks. You can do science, scientific stuff about riparian zones and all the wildlife that uses these corridors. So we wanted to build an area that worked really well for. For school groups and nonprofits to be able to get down in there and just really do some hands on learning. So that's what you're seeing in this picture that actually represent us, represents a school group down there right on the creek in this outdoor education area . So.
Speaker 5: Okay, Madam President, that that's the end of my questions. I will just comment that I gave this a lot of thought. It's a good project. I think it's going to be a real addition to the area. But like Councilwoman Ortega, I really want the public to know what we're doing here. Like no screens over this. So when I saw it pop up in it, it sort of missed my radar. I wanted to be sure we talked about it tonight. I also wanted to be sure we talked about it because in an ideal world, and I know we all know through city processes that they don't all follow in the order we would like sometimes. But in the ideal world, we would have a commitment from DPS on the transfer of this land, on their commitment to actually do environmental education if we're building and maintaining this. So but I think just by having that public discussion, that commitment now is on record. And I know Councilwoman Layman won't let up on it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Right, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 5: I think most of my questions have been answered. But, Mr. Gilmore, if you can answer just one more. So for me, I did end up supporting this project, but it was a very close call and I had a very hard time because of my concerns about the habitat impact. When you shrink a space, you just necessarily impact its integrity as habitat in a urban environment, particularly where there's so many threats. And so one of the things that I had asked questions about was the investment in other habitat enhancements. So if we're going to shrink the space, what do we do to increase the integrity of what's remaining? And so we talked a lot about plantings and restoration of native plants, etc., which I have been told I believe is actually still separately being funded. This is not intended to satisfy that commitment that is still coming and that is still a commitment of the cities in terms of the remaining habitat. Is that right?
Speaker 0: Yes. So the the dollars our request is for the bio retention area that will include all the plantations and all the revegetation around the bio retention area in the park where we actually were clearing some areas and there was some degraded property. We actually are in the process of right now treating some of the non noxious weeds that were there. We're actually going to start scraping some of the areas and and revegetated that is on the plan and we'll be doing that this spring. And with the weather the way it's been, it's been it should go really well.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. And I guess then I just want to just close the loop on this by saying it's my understanding that this investment, you know, we see in this picture the really beautiful steps, you know, for for poor people to learn. But there are, in fact, habitat improvements related to this investment in terms of the water, in terms of the plants and in terms of wildlife and or the enjoyment of, you know, those who want to experience a more natural setting. This is not simply just education space. There's actual biological investment occurring here.
Speaker 0: That's a great point, Councilwoman. This actually the pond could have just been dug out and it could have seeped just straight into the creek pretty quickly or they could have just ran the pipe to the creek. This actually is improving water quality and it will really help in the long run having that underground vault, that trash will not end up in Cherry Creek. So I think this is a good project for the city, for DPS, for the city, and for just the residents that will be walking along this creek and actually can walk down and get by the river and just enjoy a nice place to sit.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you. That's the end of my questions. And so I just I share with my colleagues the desire that our arrangements be contractually put to paper and that DPS is similarly are contractually put to paper. But I consider this a positive that above and beyond the investment that you all committed to when I voted for the project, that this is additional improvements to the biological habitat. And for that, I think it's actually a good thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Kennish. Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank Scott for all the time and all the support and really doing a fine job of answering questions from council from. My constituents, sometimes from the teachers at DPS. He was just in and did an incredible job for this project and he deserves much. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Lyman.
Speaker 4: And then I just want to say that I'm very excited about this project. And for southeast Denver as well as the city, I think it adds anything to an incredible outdoor education opportunity for everyone. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Leah and Councilwoman Shepherd.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President, I, I was the one that did pull this out last week for questions. And I'm so glad that, you know, everyone else did, too, and that we got a lot of good information. And I do appreciate all that. I had a long talk with Scott and Laureate Laura today in my office just about our capital improvement program, the funding for it, the sources for it, and sort of how much, if you will, gets allocated across the city and across the districts for various projects throughout the year. And I did not vote for the Central Park land swap. But I will admit when the when Scott talked to me today about this amenity that will be created not just for the student education, but, you know, looking at it in the context of the river and presuming that the eventual product looks like this lovely conceptual image , you know, I think it's a great amenity for all users of the trail. And in the summer I bike quite frequently through Confluence Park, and there's that one step area on the west side of the Confluence, and it's full with people sitting there enjoying the river. So I do think, you know, that the the disbursement of 400,000, you know, for this project is money well spent. But what came up for me was more of an understanding about was how our capital improvement program works. And I learned that, you know, we only get 50 million annually across the city to address everything, especially in public works and parks that needs to be maintained and or added to. And I just doing a little quick math in my head and thinking about the fact that we have just over 600,000 residents and that works out to about $83 per capita annually for all of these various capital maintenance and potential additional projects, both in public works in our parks and then moving further. There's about 8 to 10 million annually that sort of filters down, if you will, at the district level to the various council people who can advocate for specific projects in their district that that may be addressed, you know, quickly or may be put in the queue for a longer term addressing of needs in the longer term. And what that boils down to is about $17 per capita annually. That is discretionary at the city council district level. So my reason for bringing all this up, and I'm sure that some of you out there are wondering where I'm going with out with all this is the fact that $1.4 million is a lot of money, if you think about it, at the district level. So that's and a large percentage of that $1.4 million is actually going to match funding for planning for the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. So while I think it's important absolutely to leverage those funds as much as possible, that means less in the pot left over that gets distributed to the rest of the city for all of the various projects that we have to do. We are an old city with a tremendous amount of aging infrastructure. And as I sit here and I think about this and every time I ask for a ten or $20,000 improvement in a park or something, you know, it gets on a list and it doesn't get addressed until two or three years out. And it's I find it difficult and challenging to be responsive to the needs of my constituents when we're dealing with such, you know, great demands, such aging infrastructure, which is quite visible. So this is all a very long way of saying that I'm very concerned about this. And it's something that I want to let my colleagues know that I'd like to talk about at our upcoming city council budget retreat, because I just don't feel the you know, certainly the way that this is being allocated on an annual basis is enough to address the maintenance and all of the deferred maintenance that has happened during the recession over the last several years. So, you know, and then saving it all up for these large bond requests every ten years leads to more additional deferred maintenance. And I just find that we're getting farther and farther behind the eight ball. And that's what my concern is. That's why I started this discussion in the first place. So I will be voting yes for this tonight. But I am asking for a bigger conversation about this issue and about how. Take better care of our capital investments, because I think that they can greatly enhance the quality of life for our residents. And if they're not being properly taken care of, I think that really chips away at our quality of life. So thank you very much for listening to my abstract conversation. I will be voting yes for the bill, but I do. I'm asking for a bigger conversation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Shepherd. Pertinent to that, I said on the urban drainage flood control district with my colleagues, Councilwoman Lyman and and Councilman Lopez, who's the chair of that group. And I was just asking him, had we seen this camp, detention pond, retention pond remain? I always think flood control. But a bio retention pond is something very different. So but I'm wondering if urban drainage, is it also going to help out in the maintenance of this as they do? Because, of course, it is going to provide a little bit maybe cleaner, healthier water for sharing.
Speaker 0: So that we make.
Speaker 1: A case for that.
Speaker 0: We could try. But we're we're committed to making sure that we maintain it and take care of the parks.
Speaker 1: Okay. So they wouldn't they don't have any responsibility towards us.
Speaker 0: We're holding them to the ones we can.
Speaker 5: All right. So.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. I was just checking on that.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 1: Looks like all the questions and comments are finished. I guess it's time for a roll call on come on, Council 145.
Speaker 3: Or take a bow. Rob Shepherd Brooks Hi Brown. I thought I heard two. I can reach Laming. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. I never I Madam President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Mr. Secretary. Close the voting announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes when they.
Speaker 1: Go eyes one nay counts Bill 145 does pass. Okay, that is all of the ones that were called out. So I think we're ready for the block votes count from Lehman. Would you let me first say that all other bills for introduction are ordered, published and Councilwoman Lehman, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance to rescind and reappropriate in the Capital Improvement program and make an appropriation from capital improvement fund contingency.
(GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Rescinds and reappropriates $1,423,932 in unused capital improvement funds from the 2014 Capital Improvement Program budget and appropriates $250,000 from capital improvement fund contingency for the Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Choice Planning Local Match. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 3-6-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03242014_14-0102
|
Speaker 1: Okay. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council, though one or two is open. May we have the staff report? Miss Pop.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Michelle, of Community Planning in Development. Also here with me as Tina Axelrod and Michael Flaherty. So we're presenting a package with lots of changes to the Denver zoning code for clarifications and also substantive changes. We began in November by releasing a public review draft. So before we began the formal adoption process, we spent a lot of time with the community to walk through all the changes. We presented info items to planning board to the City Committee, which were then posted on Channel eight for folks to watch. And we hosted office hours, attended I and C really just to have that input before we began any formal process. In January, we, we did begin the formal adoption process. We went to the planning board and had a public hearing and that was approved unanimously, recommended approval unanimously. Based on that initial public review process, we actually took a number of things out. One, we needed more time to work with the community on the changes. We also found some new changes that we added based on public feedback, and those are all reflected in the package that you received. And we do have some comments of support as well for the package. So we've organized the text amendment into these groupings and we'll walk through just a summary, some highlights of the text amendment. Not not each change. You have each change in your packet, I believe, and I'll start with group one, which are design standards, and these are located in Articles three through nine of the Denver Zoning Code, and they include building forms and supplemental design standards, alternatives and exceptions. So a few examples here of changes we're making that are minor. We allow window wells to encroach into required setbacks three feet. If you have a setback. So a lot of times this is your single family home. The code also regulates the dimension that's running parallel to the home and limits it to four feet today. And we're proposing to increase that to six feet. And that's based on feedback from developers who have a new window product that they want to install. So this is a great, great change for that. We're also adding a number of graphics to our commercial mixed use sound districts. So you'll see here on the left page, this is the shop front building, farm and shop front. In the code today, there's one building that you can look at and it's a box. And it's sort of confusing that you actually can build a lot of different things under shopfront. So we added these graphics you'll see at the top a townhouse product. Single family, yes. You can construct single family in the main street zone districts using the shopfront building farm and on on down showing various building formats. This was based on a lot of feedback from folks using the code, not understanding that illustrative. And so we're providing more illustrative that actually look like buildings you might actually construct and see on the ground. Group two are general design standards, which which apply to all zone districts. This is Article ten of the code and its includes parking and loading, landscaping, fences and signs. Some changes that we're making in here that are substantive. One is to the bicycle parking requirement. So in 2010, we added bike parking requirements in the Denver zoning code. There's an exception, however, if you're doing a change of use that you're exempt from adding bike parking. When we were looking at this, we thought, since it's so easy to add the bike parking because you can put it in the right away if you don't have room on your lot, etc. It was important to actually still require that bike parking, even if it's just a change of use. So you'll see here this is a very old building. It has a new cafe in it. And you can see that bike parking has been accommodated for this building. A flexible use of accessory parking. This is a great addition to the Denver zoning code. So this is an office building you're looking at. And then at the end of the block, there's a very popular restaurant in Low High. And what they're able to do under the Denver zoning code is lease out those parking spaces for that office building when the office building is closed. So folks are really liking this provision, especially restaurant owners. However, they want to have some assurance from the city that they have approval and the only way to do that is to require a zoning permit. So this change actually came from them. They want to come in and obtain that zoning permit so that they have proof that they have approval before they enter into any private agreements with property owners. We're also eliminating references to valet, which is regulated by public works. Another change is we have when you're within a quarter mile of rail transit and you want to do surface parking, we restrict you to 110% of the minimum parking required in order to encourage structured parking and more active uses at our station areas. We are proposing to change this provision such that we would allow one space per dwelling unit even if it exceeds the 110%. This came from a developer working in the urban center neighborhood context when it was only three stories, so they couldn't quite build the structured parking and they also weren't able to get one space per dwelling unit under that 110%. So we feel that this this minor change still maintains the intent of that standard. Additionally, we are adding senior housing parking reductions to the Main Street Zone districts, and we're extending the 25% reduction for required parking when you're within a quarter mile of transit to the industrial and master plan zone districts. So the map on the screen, if you can see it, there's some IMAX around this station area and they don't have the allowance to for that 25% parking reduction. But the property just to the east, which is in the urban center, does so this just kind of evening, the playing field. We have some minor adjustments to fences, adding some graphics here to help understanding whether you can have a four foot fence or a six foot fence and where. And more importantly, in the master plan zone districts, we are allowing a six foot fence between the primary structure and the primary street when the primary structure is orienting toward open space. So this is a unique condition in our master plan zone districts. This came from builders working in Stapleton, primarily where the open space actually functions as the primary street. And the street, which in the zoning code is called Primary Street, is functioning as a side street. So this kind of just allows us to recognize that unique condition to the signs. We're adding an allowance for projecting signs and this is pretty exciting today. You have to go through the part of adjustment variance process to get these great pedestrian oriented signs. So we're going to add these to the mixed use zone districts, and they'll include all the limitations that you see in the Golden Triangle Zone District today, which which allows projecting signs. And I'll now turn it over to Tina.
Speaker 6: Hi. Tina Axelrod for community planning and development. Pick up with the next group which deal with allowed uses in the code to this is you'll see these provisions in the use tables and articles three through nine and then in article 11 which has all of our use limitations. Again, just highlighting a few of the changes in the package. One is revisions to the allowance for certain nonresidential uses in residential zones, provided that the use goes into an existing business structure. This has been on the books for a long time. Recently, I think we've seen a bit of a resurgence in people applying for this use, and it's brought out a number of of a need for clarification. For example, we never really defined what a business structure was and wasn't. So this amendment does clarify that. It's a structure that was originally constructed for 100% business use, not mixed business and residential and not churches. And that's how we've been interpreting it and applying it over the years. But to get it into the code just makes it clear at this point for for everyone. We've also added back more clarity to how much you can expand the existing building structure, if at all. And you'll see in the photograph this is pretty typical. Might have a small office building on the corner of what's otherwise a residential zone will allow you to do minor modifications to the building, put in new doors and windows , do things that essentially are nonstructural or increasing. You cannot increase the volume anymore. I mean, the whole point is to accommodate reuse of the existing structure, not allow you to morph into something two times bigger than what you were originally. Another highlighted change that a substantive change is a wholesale package of changes to make it easier to establish small scale breweries, distilleries and what's the other one? Wineries in are manufacture under our manufacturing uses in more places in the city under a set of controls to make them feel like an act like more like other uses allowed in our mixed use commercial zone districts. We will allow these. So for example near residential zones, just like a restaurant or bar or another land use with the potential for impacts on surrounding neighbors, we've added limitations. If you're going to put in a new craft brewery, you're going to operate under the same limits on hours of operation , on outdoor uses, again to mitigate potential impacts. So that's a major change.
Speaker 5: We had a lot of.
Speaker 6: Interest from the industry last year and the year before to accommodate the growth that we're now seeing. And this will take us even further. Another new use that's been added to the code is a new type of home occupation. These are home businesses, businesses you can run out of your house under a certain set of limitations. We are clarifying that a new type of permitted use would be food preparation. If you want to run a catering business and use your home kitchen and assuming you can bring it up to other types of codes and safety regulations that are out there, you can do that out of your home and not have to go to a commercial or commissary kitchen to do it. A point of clarification. You cannot sell the food from your from your home under this type of business. The next group has to do with changes to parking requirements. And just this is just focus on the amount of parking required. We had a few changes here. We revised some parking requirements for high schools to better distinguish them from middle schools because as you can intuitively know, there'll be a greater demand for parking spaces for students who are old enough to drive and are high schools rather than our middle schools. We reduced the minimum parking requirement for Artists Studio that use had been combined with a number of more intensive or a number of uses that have more intensive parking requirements. And upon further study, we determined that we we were requiring or over parking artist studios. So that's been reduced. And similarly lodging within a campus district like putting a hotel on the campus of a college or university. We had this scenario occur, had a lot of discussion and reevaluation of what the park bicycle parking demand and how can be accommodated there. So you'll see a reduction in bicycle parking as a result of that study. Group six is all of our zoning procedures. This is Article 12 of the code. And you'll see from the list that the changes have touched a number of different procedures that obviously we use every day. So we had revisions to zoning permit process, administrative adjustments, rezonings, a few fewer GDP's regulating plans, compliant uses and structures across the whole gamut. I'm just going to hit and highlight a few of these. Again, we're here to answer any questions later if you want more detail on the rezoning side, something close to home for all of you. We clarified and and codified the charter authority for any individual council member to initiate a MAP amendment to the code. So if you'll recall, very recently we've had a number of requests for resolutions from the entire Council to initiate a rezoning sponsored by one of one of you. That was a process step that was pretty unique post 2010 because we've kind of inadvertently removed your right just to bring it forward on your own initiative. So we had to go through that resolution process. This will clear a path for any of you to bring forward without having to take that additional step. And you've got the charter given right. We just unintentionally made it harder for you through the zoning code and other rezoning changes. Again, you see a lot of these. So it's it's important for you to realize some of these changes before a zoning rezoning application can even become a rezoning application and move forward. There are some minimum requirements and one of them is a minimum land area. So you have to consolidate enough land for to in order to ask for a certain zone districts in our code to move forward. We've taken a hard look at this and we continue to evaluate our minimum area requirements. But for this package, here are some of the changes that have come out. One thing that we saw over and over was the minimum area requirement is kind of getting in our way of moving land from old code to new code. Our goal overall is to try over time to get us to get all our land into the new code and operate under one code.
Speaker 5: But we have a lot.
Speaker 6: Of former Chapter 59 zone lands out there. Some of them are very small and wouldn't necessarily meet our minimum area requirement. We didn't want that to create a false barrier to getting re zoned into the new code just by virtue of the fact that they had waivers or conditions or so. We've eliminated the minimum requirement. They still get evaluated for plan, consistency and all the other criteria that you're familiar with in others. For other rezonings to other zone districts, you can see we've reduced or eliminated the minimum requirements. Again, based on reevaluating what we were trying to do, we're trying to implement our plans. Some of these zone districts operate at a much smaller scale, even an individual property scale still consistent with what their intent is. So where we could we eliminated it. Administrative adjustments are a great tool in our code for folks to seek some variation from strict application of the zoning standards on a case by case basis through a staff review, rather than having to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. So here with this package, we've added a new area where property owners can ask for an adjustment, and that's on some of our narrower residential lots on this interior setback lines to be able to ask for a or decrease in setbacks no less than three feet. But yes, maybe if they have a five foot or seven and a half foot requirement, some reduction there, again, has to be based on a finding that that reduction would be or would result in a more in a in a setback that's more compatible with what's already in the neighborhood. So that's a great change for homeowners. Then our final group of changes, Group seven were two, Article one, which has our general provisions and of most interest here are zone provisions. We made some changes to the allowance on the creation of flag lots and you can see from the picture what we're talking about is this type of zone lot where you have a narrow flagpole between where really you're putting the main use of the land and your access to a public street. Then we clarified what these really were meant to do. It never had an intent statement, so it was never clear why we allow these in the first place. Generally, they respond to some historic or a subdivision pattern that was created that resulted in especially deep lots that now 20 years later or 30 years later. Don't quite respond to market demand. So we have put some limits on it to assure that true to the intent, we're only capturing or allowing these things where we have those especially deep lots and we do have them. We have them in Southwest Denver, we have them in Central Denver, we have them in Northwest Denver. So with all that, what we're asking you to do today is to take this package of zone amendments, hold them up against the review criteria for text amendments, which I'll briefly go through and hopefully at the end of this evening be able to make a final decision. You must find that the package taken as a whole is consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. Staff's finding in this case is that this entire package is consistent with the plan, that that these amendments will assure that we remain flexible and responsive of current and future land use needs in the city. The second criteria is that it further the public health, safety and general welfare staff again found bombs and fines. Getting my verbs mixed up that these changes again help to provide clarity and predictability for facilitating planned and desired private businesses, changes in industry and redevelopment. And that through these amendments, we continue to consistently attempt to implement our adopted plans. And finally, the last criteria that the package results from regulations that are uniform, we do find that the regulations will result in uniformity in the treatment of buildings and land uses within the same zoned district and that overall bigger picture. The amendment includes improvements to assure greater consistency in the application of zoning regulations, which of course improves this, improves the city's ability to administer and enforce the code uniformly. With all that, CPD recommends approval. And of course, Michael, Michelle and I are here to answer any more specific questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tina. We have two speakers this evening and I'll just call them out one after another. Joel Noble.
Speaker 0: Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I'm president of Curtis Park Neighbors and I live at 2705 Stout Street. You have a letter in your packet from Curtis Park neighbors supporting this omnibus text amendment and laying out several the many reasons why we believe you should support it as well. Broadly, this is a package of bug fixes. My computer science person, someone asked me in a local paper, what's what's going on with this? I said, it's it's bug fixes. It's the little things that haven't worked right that they're putting all together rather than dealing with 1 to 1, one on one and passing in Curtis Park. Some of those fixes allow very important things like row houses that are on corners. There's something called the primary street determination, and the short edge of your property might be your primary street. And rather unexpectedly, that's the edge where you're happy, where your doors have to be. Even though for a row house going along the side street is where you'd want all the doors. So that's fixed in this four hour context. The bicycle parking requirements are very appreciated. Right next door to us in on Welton Street are the commercial mixed use districts. There's been some confusion about all the different building forms and do I have to pick one and I have to stay with that forever? Well, the this set of amendments simplifies the building forms pretty dramatically. There's one provision in here that specific to Curtis Park. It was referenced just briefly in the presentation in 2010. We worked really hard to make sure that the zoning that we got allowed accessory dwelling units. And it does. And in 2011, people started trying to build them and said, oh, this isn't working right. Because we have exceptionally narrow lots. And the problem with the the out of the box provisions for accessory dwelling units is they have something called a bulk plain. And if you own exceptionally narrow lot and you have a bulk plane, you can build a garage with a hallway on top of it. So since 2011, we've been saying, you know, could we do this? We have a strong desire for building accessory dwelling units so that people can age in place, so they can move family here to live with them, but not to close with them. And and also to increase the affordability of the neighborhood. Central city neighborhoods throughout the country are becoming more popular and prices are going up. And if we have the ability in a compatible way to have some smaller units, those smaller units will inherently be more affordable and keep the mix that we so treasure in our neighborhood. So after presenting a letter to CPD asking for this and then responding to their requests for a photo essay, demonstrating that this was in fact continuing an existing pattern of what were called carriage houses in the neighborhood. They agreed. And as part of this, that's specific to Curtis Park. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Noble Sekou.
Speaker 7: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, an advocacy group for poor, working, poor and homeless people. First of all, we like to commend the city planning department for taking on this task. And at the same time, our concern is that because it's so overreaching, okay. And there's so much stuff in this, if we just get real honest about this. We can have a show of hands that will say, hey, I read this thing and I understand all the implications of this thing and therefore I'm going to vote for it or I'm not going to vote for it. See, that ain't gonna happen because nobody had time to do none of that kind of research. All right. And this thing is so broad. All right. And outreaching that we need to look at the details of this thing before we vote on this thing. All right. Which means that sometimes we got to slow down and do our homework. You know, kind of like what we tell our kids to do. Take your time, do your homework. Get it.
Speaker 0: Right. All right.
Speaker 7: Because there are some pieces in this that are missing that a glaring. Because when I looked at this thing, I was like, where is poor people in any of this? Where was the outreach in getting us involved in this process where we could even learn that this even existed? See? And there are some things that need to be strengthened in this thing, especially when it comes to those accessory units. All right. The poor people need. So we have a place that we can go. So when there's an economic downturn and somebody needs to move into a family, then they don't have to go to a whole bunch of this. And then we one bureaucratic mess. So it's okay for them to move a family in and create a permanent structure for them to have without it being. No, Ms.. De none of that in there. All right. None of that in terms of how does this work. All right. So to step up and to vote for this thing without doing the research and getting to the fine details of this thing would be a huge mistake. Huge mistake. And then there's a cost involved. And then all of this involves how do we engage poor people in the city in the process of doing some of the work that was under construction being part of public work? Do this, do that, do that. And we're all now talking about being all of Denver because we're all included. But there was no outreach for poor people in this. There's not one poor organization on this list of community organizations that was contacted to represent poor people. So now we're out there picture like we don't exist. What's up with that? Come on. Real. I know we can do better than that. If you don't use your position that the bully pulpit to advocate for that, to win the mayor and the city departments come in here and do that and ask for the outreach of including everybody in this. Then we're we're missing our duty because we're supposed to represent everybody in the city. All right. Not just some classes or privileged groups, but everybody got everybody involved and engaged in this. Because in order for this thing to work, everybody needs to feel a part of this thing.
Speaker 1: Your time is up.
Speaker 7: So I want to thank you very much and thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. That concludes our speakers now questions from council. Councilwoman Fox.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I have questions, I think, for Tina. Tina, on the slide, one of the slides you put up, it was about eliminating the maximum area for R0. And I'd like to have that put in more context for me. Where are you stuck? Because I presume that we have changed much. Of what? Anything that fell under the new zoning code wouldn't still be called R. Oh.
Speaker 6: This is a diff. Okay with me. Are you done with your question? I don't want to. Please go ahead. Okay. So in this list, R zero is the zone district that the R stands for residential. The it's actually not R zero. You got me. This is r o. It's actually a letter, not a number. So R0 stands for residential office. It is not the same as R zero under former Chapter 59, which was a single family zoned district. R o and the new code is a residential office, so it's a higher intensity residential zone that also allows office uses. We have that allowance under R for R three and the old code, and this is a continuation of that policy in the new code. So not the twain shall meet.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. I was getting confused there. The second question I have, I don't know. Let me ask you. And then Mike might need to chime in. Has concerned the domestic employees not counting toward the maximum number of people in the in the household. And I see that there's a reference to moving a definition in to or from Chapter 59 wasn't into this. I'd like to know what is the definition? And I put it in the context that one of the most frequent complaints we have is too many people in one house. Are we aggravating the situation by this? These are not homes. Ordinarily, that would be considered hiring domestic employees in the usual sense.
Speaker 6: So Michael's looking up our definition of domestic employee, which was carried from former Chapter 59 back and back into the Denver zoning code. It had been overlooked and it was brought to our attention through a number of zoning reviews in the intervening years. It had been a policy under the former code not to count domestic employees who live full time in your home towards the total number of unrelated persons who come live in your household has nothing to do with with really, you know, what is a household? There are limits, as you know, on the number of unrelated people who can live in a single household. So we realized during this package review and the collection of of changes that we had discontinue the policy, if you will, that had been in place for many years by being silent on it. So therefore, if you had a live in help or caretaker domestic help, it would have counted towards your three or four maximum unrelated. And we didn't want to ding someone from that. The definition, again, pretty much straight from the previous code, is a person or persons living in the household of another, paying no rent for such occupancy and paying no part of any household utilities where such person or persons perform household and or property mount maintenance duties for the general care, comfort and convenience of the household occupants. Today, answer your question at this point or did he need more?
Speaker 4: A domestic employee does not have to receive compensation.
Speaker 6: It does not talk about comments. It just talks about that they're not paying rent. It's not like a tenant. So whether they receive compensation in money or or some other means. We don't speak to that. But the point is, they're not on the same level or treated legally as a tenant would be who is expected to pay rent of some sort.
Speaker 4: Madam President, can I ask Mike then? Mike, can you tell me from an anti-choice standpoint or any of the regulatory reviews, then if a person says there's just too many people in that household and indeed a couple of them are being claimed as domestic employees, but you just really believe that maybe that's not quite the case. How are you going to handle this, or are you.
Speaker 0: The definition that is now in the Denver zoning code gives us a little more back background to clarify exactly what the status of that person is, whether that person is a tenant or a rooming and boarding person in the house versus somebody who's actually not paying rent and exchange for living is providing household domestic service. So I kind of get that the intent of that definition is to clarify just what that person is doing and to try to give us something to test against the relationship of that person to the rest of the household. Thank you. You're welcome.
Speaker 1: But is that the last question? Okay. Thanks, Councilwoman for Councilwoman Connie.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. My first question was about the house facing open space and the fence on the side. So you mentioned that this idea came from Stapleton, where we kind of have, you know, the main housing type in the city that faces open space, the commons, I think they call it. So let me ask this change only applies to the new zoning code. It's my understanding that portions of Stapleton are still in the old zoning code. So can you clarify for me how much of Stapleton is still in the old zoning code? No, I can't give you that number here tonight. Sorry, I have to get, like, a sense, like significance. Yeah, it's significant. There are significant portions that were not rezone to the new code. However, they're under a completely different set of rules, so they don't currently experience this problem. We inadvertently created this problem when we wrote the new zoning code. Okay, that's helpful. That's what I was trying to go. Second question is about we have a staff summary, which is, oh, it is from you guys. Okay. I was just thinking it might be from our staff, but page 16 and I don't remember this being one you mentioned in the presentation. So it's about trailer courts and trailer parks. So it talks about limiting the continuance of nonconforming trailer courts and it gives some conditions where you then I think the correct words to state is lose you lose your ability to continue non conformance. And so some of these make sense to me, right? Which is if you increase the number of trailers, right, you're adding if you reduce the space between trailers. But the second the second half does not make sense to me. So if you replace an older trailer with a newer HUD who've trailer, which to me sounds like a really good thing to do, we penalize you by losing your status. Same thing if you replace an individual trailer with a newer one that's placed in a permanent foundation, which I would think is probably much safer and much more likely to hold up to weather events and other types of flooding or other things that might put a family at risk. And so explain to me why we would discourage folks from upgrading mobile homes by their park, losing its zoning status. That that's confusing to me.
Speaker 6: Okay. Let me try to step this out. These provisions only apply to preexisting mobile home parks or trailer parks. We do have those in the city. They became non-conforming in 1956. So there has been an established policy set by councils starting back then with no change in the interim that that is a use that we don't want to see expand or grow more permanent than it already is existing on the ground. If you accept the premise of the policy decision behind the treatment of trailer parks in Denver, and that's we're taking that as a given, then anything you do to a trailer park or the individual trailers and the trailer park to make them more permanent or to upgrade them. So essentially they're they're not replacing a like for like but replacing an old trailer with something that's going to last a long time, goes against the grain of the policy decision that we'd prefer not to see these trailer parks, mobile home parks continue in perpetuity in the city of Denver. So that's why C and.
Speaker 5: D.
Speaker 6: Are are limited in terms of you can replace an old trailer with another old trailer or essentially pre HUD trailer and they do exist on the market out there. But we don't we see that a distinctive change in the character and duration of that use. If you replace the old trailer with something that's now certified and manufactured to last a good number of decades beyond today and similar, when you tie them to the ground and create a permanent foundation, you've just added, for better or for worse, more life to that. Use that again. If you take if you start with the premise that this is something we wanted to phase out of the city, that's how we got to these limitations.
Speaker 5: I don't want to cross over to my friend and comments, but I guess I mean question for you and it's not as tongue in cheek as it sounds because I just want to make sure. So the idea is that will phase out trailer parks by allowing them to crumble around the people living in them. I mean, that's kind of I mean, it's like.
Speaker 6: We've been interpreting and applying these standards unwritten for decades now, and we've got a long history of that. So we wanted to bring it up. You know, it's a little more transparent with more clarity to the park owners and to others. We had a big case where it came up in the last year where there was a lot of confusion. So that's our hope now just to, you know, bring into the light what we've been practicing as zoning policy and rules for decades now.
Speaker 5: That's all the questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Rob.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I had one question, but I want to follow up on the issue that Councilwoman Kennedy raised, because I think it's valid. It's not a discussion I recall having, but we basically do allow HUD approved manufactured factory homes, and that's not particularly regulated by any zone district. We do allow those in the city in a lot of those.
Speaker 6: A lot. You can you can put a manufacturer.
Speaker 5: Still do have to have that that individual lot which can be a constraint to some people.
Speaker 6: But is a source of affordable housing as a product type. Right.
Speaker 5: They are good.
Speaker 6: Products. You have the land or you get the land and it's in a single family. Whatever you can, you can use a factory built home. There's no prohibitions on that from zoning or building in the city.
Speaker 5: Okay. And I assume existing trailer parks are in various zoned districts throughout the city in the new.
Speaker 6: I will let Mike respond to that. And I know generally where they I don't want to take.
Speaker 0: They are, they there's probably somewhere around eight or ten that I can think of. And they're in a variety of districts ranging from residential to business. And I think there's one in an industrial zone.
Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, Mike, my question that I had On my Radar tonight is on page two of the staff report on primary building forums. It's right in the very beginning, talks about I'm looking primarily in the districts, the zone districts that I have in my district, the new RH zone. It talks about replacing the upper storey step back with an upper storey setback. And for the life of me, I don't know the difference between those terms. It's where you measure from. So a setback is measured from a property line or a zone lot line and a step back is measured from the building phase. So a step back of 15 feet as measured from where that building starts. Right. You go in 15. A setback would be measured from the zone lot line, which is probably some distance from that block. So basically what you're doing then is removing the upper story step back because I'm assuming the the lower storey, the first floor is at the setback. And if if the upper storey has to be at the setback, you're moving the step back. So what was happening? So the step back works well when you want to create one plane, but when you have a home that modulates down the zone lot as it moves to the back yard, the step back was still forcing this 15 foot break in the wall. So if you measure it from the setback, you still get it when it's close to the property line. But as you opt to move your building away from your property line for architectural reasons, you're no longer going to provide that same. Oh, I see. Yeah. I wish I had an illustration. I apologize. Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have several questions. So let me start with the first one as I've gone through this document. I'm trying to clarify whether there are any new categories. We have this cheat sheet that was provided to us some time ago. For those of us who were not involved in the rewrite of the zoning code that is supposed to help guide us. And so I'm trying to figure out whether or not there are any new categories to add to this cheat sheet.
Speaker 5: No. Okay.
Speaker 4: Great. That's good to know. So on the setback the and particularly for properties, you know throughout north and where we have a lot of. These houses and carriage lots in the back. So you have properties that sit right on the zone lot. And so I'm trying to understand how either adding on to a house or replacing the home is affected by these. Changes. I know. Some time ago when I was on the council before. If a home that sits on the zone lot burned down, it could be replaced in the same exact place without having to do the set back. But I don't know what the case is. If you just want to expand or as you know, we are seeing lots of scrape offs throughout northwest Denver and trying to figure out if in those cases are able to build right up to the zone lot or if they still have to have the setback.
Speaker 0: So one of the big differences in the Denver zoning code from former Chapter 59 is that the required set back distance from the side property line decreases as a lot is narrower. So we have a gradient of setback requirements. We also have work carried forward from former Chapter 59, which allows enlargement of a non-conforming structure. When that non conformance is the side setback, that building can be legally expanded when using the non-conforming setback dimension.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: And then the protection for non-conforming structures carries through for any residential structure in a residential zone district. If it's accidentally damaged or destroyed, it can be fully replaced to the extent that it was standing. Non conformance can't be expanded over what it already was.
Speaker 4: So in the same footprint. Yes. Okay. All right. Madam President, I have two more. Do you want me to continue or do you want to call on others and then come back to me? Go ahead. Okay. On the flexible parking issue, help me understand if this only applies to office buildings or is it where it's shared parking ? And you use the example of my old office building actually that was in the picture on 16th Street, across the street from the old Wenger's mortuary, which has lots of businesses in it now. So what I'm trying to understand is if it's another commercial use that's not an office building, how are you all making sure that you're not competing for the same parking?
Speaker 5: There's actually a review criteria in there or a performance criteria in there that talks about how you can't be using the same pool of parking because that's required parking for someone else. Yeah. So there are I don't I don't have the language in front of me, but there are provisions in there that, that speak directly to that so that we're not creating parking problems with this allowance.
Speaker 4: Great. Okay. And then my last question has to do it's actually with the GDPR and then the regulating plan. And on page 16, it looks like there are proposed changes and the language isn't clear. That helps me really understand what these changes mean and what they're doing. So I want you to walk through what the changes are to the GDPR and then also the same to the regulating plan.
Speaker 6: So this is on page 16 of your summary document at the top of the top of the page. Two substantive changes to general development plan provisions are described. The first one, it says it deletes the requirement for a subsequent regulating plan if an approved general development plan does not include designation of primary streets. So we thought we had a bright idea at the beginning of the day that we might want to use the regulating plan in cases where you've got a general development plan. It's unclear in the general or just not specified in the general development plan which of the many streets that might be laid out in that GDP is under zoning terms of primary street because once you know what your primary street zone that line is, a lot of zoning standards attached to that, like setbacks, like bill twos, like transparency and entrance requirements. So we thought at the time that maybe it would be a good idea that if you didn't specify that in a general development plan, that we should require a tool in before site development, that you would you would take to designate on second and third and much discussed.
Speaker 4: So let me just make sure I heard that clearly. Sure. So you're the leading the requirement for a regulating plan only if a GDP has been approved for that site.
Speaker 6: One of the few places where we where the code required a regulating plan was this scenario one of several play scenarios under which we would require regulating plan. So we're just deleting this as a mandatory requirement because we did find in practice that it didn't it wasn't necessary. We had other tools that could step in and designate the. Primary streets, most likely a site development plan where you're really we're beginning to lay it all out and that this was adding an unnecessary procedural step and taking time that didn't need to be taken in the development process to do this. The second substantive change was just to clarify a clarification that we do have some instances in the preparation of general development plans where the city steps in as an applicant, often to essentially represent numerous land owners of smaller properties or where it would just be unrealistic to expect them to come to the play to do a general development plan. So for example, the federal Decatur General Development Plan that just has gone through the approval process, the city was an applicant there and represented a lot of the smaller landowners through that process to lay out a master plan for the infrastructure of the open spaces and some of the key connections and parks improvements and drainage improvements. It was unclear and a little bit difficult in the new code to to understand what that meant when it came time to approve the GDP. Could the city kind of in their representative role, just sign the GDP? And that would be if they were the applicant and we didn't need to go the hundred and 50 individual landowners to sign the GDP when in fact the city had stepped in to that role. There's a lot of outreach involved. And under former Chapter 59, we saw and under our rules and regulations that we had never required those 150 people who were never applicants to sign off. But it was unclear in the code. So we just wanted to make it absolutely clear and aboveboard that the GDP's executed by the applicants and not by all the owners in this scenario. So I'm sorry if that's confusing, but in practice, in the short answer is it removed a procedural barrier to a practice of the city. Being an applicant which had been in place since GDPs were adopted, that we inadvertently took away.
Speaker 4: Okay. Can you speak to the regulating play?
Speaker 6: Sure. So also on page 16 of your summary, we have a few changes, one substantive change in a few, just usability and clarification changes to the regulating plan procedures in Article 12. One thing which is we have in all our zoning procedures in Article 12, when it comes time to make a final decision, there's typically three choices you have as a decision maker. You can approve it, you can deny it, or you can approve it with conditions attached. Well, that last approved with conditions attached was missing from the choices that the final decision maker on a regulating plan had. So that went against the grain of of giving that option to the decision maker. So we just put that back in for the or put that in for the regulating plan.
Speaker 4: So just to make sure I understand what you're saying correctly, you're attaching those conditions to the actual free zone.
Speaker 6: No, this has nothing to do with the rezoning. This is just the process of reviewing and approving a regulating plan, which comes after a rezoning and typically before site development, where it lays out more specifically the range of choices you have to implement. This already approved zoning you have on the ground.
Speaker 4: But just to be clear, the regulating plans are, as I recall, with one that came forward between the applicant and the community, wasn't in agreement with the city.
Speaker 6: I don't know what you're referring to, but all regulating plans that we've approved through the process described in the zoning code are between the landowner, developer and the city. It's a binding agreement or a plan between those two parties.
Speaker 4: So the provisions that are in the regulating plan have the effect of enforcement?
Speaker 6: Yes, they do. They're regulatory. Okay. So that was just a clear, you know, to give that option to our decision maker. And then the other changes were just clean up, essentially. You can see them listed there. Did you have any specific questions on the floor there?
Speaker 4: No, I just remember we had one regulating plan that came forward that was part of a rezoning. And that's what I remember.
Speaker 6: That was it was a condition. Two of the research hall. A regulating plan. Yes, you're right. There was a.
Speaker 4: Case it was an agreement between the developer and the community, as I recall, that.
Speaker 5: So the neighborhood didn't like it?
Speaker 6: No, that was what I.
Speaker 4: Remember was that it didn't have the effect of of law or enforcement, because in in this particular case, the community had had basically worked these things out that they wanted to see incorporated, but there wasn't any way to ensure that they were enforced. And if the land had been sold, there was no way to ensure that those provisions carried with the land to a new purchaser.
Speaker 6: So there's a bit of mixing of of of things there. But some of what you're saying, you're absolutely right, some of which you're portraying is a little off from the sequence of events that happened. There was a rezoning, there was a condition. It was a rezoning with a condition. The condition was prepare a regulating plan prior to site development, according to the Denver zoning code. That's all it said. So that was packaged with the rezoning. And so you did see that condition. But what you didn't see were were the final specifics of the of the details of the regulating plan. I think as a courtesy, the applicant at that time brought forward where they were in the process of preparing the regulating plan, which is pretty far along. So you got a taste of what is in a regulating plan. The requirement for the condition arose out of the fact that the zoned district, as it stood, didn't fully implement our adopted plans. And the regulating plan condition was a tool that we had available for our use to assure a better fit between the ultimate rezoning and the and the limits of that zoning district. An implementation of a recently adopted plan. Okay.
Speaker 4: So I'll. I'll just let everybody keep going. Thank you. And see if I have additional questions.
Speaker 1: Good choice, Councilwoman Shepard.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. So I don't know where it is in this, but can you me to the part about the the spirits and the the small scale manufacturing of spirits, wine and beer.
Speaker 6: Okay. So in your summary document, which might be the easiest place to see the summary of those changes, it's on page. Okay. Page ten. This was a substantive change described to Article 11, which has ah, which was a part of the group Newsies. So you can see under primary uses industrial manufacturing and wholesale. Number one, that whole list of changes there relates to the effort and the codification of a greater allowance for small scale wineries, breweries and distilleries in the city. We did that through a variety of paths. We created new definitions of essentially what a small scale type of operation would be and the least impactful of that smaller scale. We could fit into a definition of custom manufacturing along the lines in terms of productions of what a brewpub might produce in a year that small but without the food and everything, just the production side, that small scale of a brewery became a could be fit under custom manufacturing. And then we made sure the custom manufacturing was allowed. And so in districts to allow this use where we allow Brewpubs, for example, we looked at we have three levels of manufacturing uses custom, general and heavy . Previous to this proposed amendment, the only way you can get a full blown brewery, winery or distillery was to go into the heavy manufacturing use category, and that's only allowed in a very few parts of our city that are zoned industrial. So by carving out small scale operations, fitting them into the definition of custom manufacturing and general manufacturing, distinguished by the amount of production we could allow the more places in the city. So that's one we did. And then where.
Speaker 5: We.
Speaker 6: You know, acknowledge that we now could have a brewery winery distillery that may want to operate in our smallest neighborhood. Commercial are our twos or threes where we have some of that embedded in residential neighborhoods. We added limitations similar to how we treat restaurants, bars, whether it's an outdoor patio or, you know, any type of entertainment. They're subject to the same limitations on ours. Their lighting has to be turned off at a certain hour. And those types of things, if they want to do an outdoor tasting or seating area accessory to a brewery, distillery or winery that's acknowledged as an as an allowed accessory use. But you've got to go through the same process that a restaurant patio or outdoor eating area, you might have to go to the boa if it's really close to a residential use. Otherwise we'll limit you on hours and placement and and other things like that.
Speaker 5: I'm assuming for the places that have a tasting area that there's no food requirements.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is different than an outdoor eating area which we have listed separately. So this will just be an outdoor seating slash tasting area.
Speaker 5: So, you know, I'm not sure, you know, there's a particular place that's operating in my district that might fall into this category. Now, I'm not sure if it would, but operates more like a bar excuse me, operates more like a bar, but doesn't have food on site. Food trucks come sometimes. There's. Sometimes the food trucks are not located where they should be. And then there's these, you know, conflicts between protected zone districts. The food truck slash food service thing that customers are wanting, you know, and it gets hairy. So I'm just wondering if you can enlighten me on any more so that because typically people like to eat when they're drinking. Yeah. Well.
Speaker 6: This category of yours that we've sliced out of the heaviest of of production facilities is all about production. And it can have, as an incidental or secondary use, an accessory use. It could have a tasting room inside. It can have tours, it can do all that. It could have a seating area. It could also move those functions outdoors subject to these limitations. We're dealing with what happens on private property with these zoning changes. So food trucks that are allowed through other combination of policies and rules on the street in front of it are not going to be affected by this at all. Okay.
Speaker 5: That's kind of what I was trying to clarify or, you know, or food. Yeah.
Speaker 6: If they want to serve food, then really you're we're looking at a combination use of restaurant slash, bar slash manufacturing or a brewpub. If you're brewing beer or, you know, it becomes another use once you start serving food. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a general question now. We were talking about signs. I forget I'm not bringing it up when we were actually talking about it in committee, but we weren't talking about the sign code and looking at those horizontal signs. Do we have to address the mural signs now? Because a lot of those are are actually violations of the zoning code when you do a mural sign. But they worked back when because you can see the evidence of them on our walls and they're actually pretty catchy and they're vintage and other vintage is cool. Again, we may want to reconsider that. And also because I have a district where mural art is also a cultural thing, where the signs are cultural and where they create a sense of vibrancy, a sense of place. And you go to L.A., you look at Latino urbanism in L.A., and that's what it's about.
Speaker 5: So there's a few different flavors when I hear the term mural, right? So there's pure art where there is no logo, there's no signage that's allowed. Zoning doesn't get involved, right? If you're doing our zoning, it's not a sign, right? As soon as you start to incorporate signage, there are provisions in the code, so it gets treated like a sign at that point. There's one section specifically about art that incorporates a logo and that has its own set of provisions. If you meet that, that's your set of rules. But then if you're purely just a sign that's also artistic, you start to follow all the sign code provisions. As you know, we hope to do an overhaul of the sign code, knowing that there are many parts of it that are broken. This was one sort of minor fix that we did in the you know, until we can do that. But I think that would be part of that package is looking at when it's more artistic or culturally relevant to a neighborhood, what are the rules and regulations for that type of sign?
Speaker 0: And I think that I mean, that's that if I may add, you know, that is what is missing. And I think that's where we are. We don't get it right and we don't adapt to the culture in our city. And I think when you look at some of these other cities, what makes them that city is that culture. Right. And you look at some of these districts, you know, I would rather see a mural sign, if you will, and some crappy plastic signage just hanging off of a building. I think it's much more tasteful.
Speaker 5: Right? I don't disagree.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I have two questions. And I don't I don't know who wants to take this one. We have one of the most complicated to two areas, very, very complex. One, I think you're you're kind of getting to the D. S zoning in here. And the other one is a larger conversation about four storey zone districts, which you don't have in the city. But was that ever a part of the conversation at all? And here's why. As we're looking, there is a certain rezoning in the Skyland neighborhood, and it's in a residential area, and I'm sure you guys are aware of it. And the neighbors would support a four storey, you know, zoned district, but they want support of five storey. But in order to get to five. So you got to do, you know, so the so you got to do the five story. And so I just have wondered, has there been a demand for that in the communities and development community at all?
Speaker 5: It's definitely not the first time we've heard of a desire for fourth story, and we've been having some creative conversations among staff about different ways to achieve that within the construct that we have in the Denver zoning code. So, you know, we'd love to if you want to reach out to our office to talk more about specific cases you have.
Speaker 0: So there's some innovative ways for us to do that. That's what you're saying? Yeah. Okay. I just want to be on record for saying that. And then the little bit more complicated, the DEA zoning is some pate, I think it was page seven and we went work with Kari Buckey before he left. We miss him. On this issue, the city has zoning between 18th and 22nd on Welton, which is it's very confusing for some of the individuals who are coming and redeveloping there. And I see that you you did some work here, minor kind of interior parking, landscaping issues. But the issue that is still not clear because it's coming from the old eight zoning is whether kind of developers or anyone who is trying to, you know, do any kind of new build has to come before the planning board for a review of their new build. And I went round and round with Kerry on this issue because it's not codified in the new zoning. And so I'm just wondering if if we get that taken care of.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think you might be referring to a supplemental set of regulations, the proposed square design standards and guidelines. So we recently and it doesn't come before council because their rules and regulations we added a map to that document that shows these properties are subject to this document and it talks about the planning board process and the various design guidelines. So it's been clarified and well, we should get you a copy so you can take a look at it.
Speaker 0: And when did you guys clarify this?
Speaker 5: I think it went to the planning board in December oh, 2013. Yeah, I think it was the city attorney. I think Carrie actually brought it to our attention in relationship to a project that was happening.
Speaker 0: And the reason I brought it up is because there's, there's two others on districts that are similar to it. And I was just wondering, did we take care of all of them because we're going to come up to this issue again somewhere else in the city. So.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and we look forward to the, you know, whatever the rewrite or whatever that is for the Arapahoe Square zoning, looking at all the various documents that those property owners are subject to and streamlining and finding ways to make it as clear as possible. Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing now and ask for comments by members of council. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank staff for one thing, your staff report for addressing my 1258 pages.
Speaker 0: Of zoning.
Speaker 5: Code was very concise. And I also want to say that I.
Speaker 6: Was able to.
Speaker 5: Attend the planning board hearing, I think it was early February and and listened to it was maybe their meeting after the hearing. I don't know. But I listened to their. You know, Joe testified it was a hearing. I listened to their discussion of it. And I want to say what a terrific job the planning board did on delving into all the details. Staff is noted that they talk about flag lots, but they also talked about tandem houses. They really picked up on things they were hearing from community outreach, from the board of Realtors. I think they did some of our.
Speaker 0: Work.
Speaker 5: In a way. They they really did that. Now, other things have come up tonight. There's always going to be things that we're going to want to delve into further. But they did a terrific job. The other thing I just want to talk about is I think in not every case, but I think in a lot of this you are seeing changes that people on council brought to the attention of planning board, like the projecting signs. You know, that was a little too late for the Argonaut on Coal Fax or the new Office Depot, you know. And they had to spend the time and the money to go through the Board of Adjustment. But I was really glad to see that in their high school definition, I think might be another one and the parking requirements there. So I really appreciate this. The other piece that actually sort of not troubled me because council should have the right to bring forward the rezonings. But I really like the policy when rezoning a larger area of doing the proclamation so that people know that we're doing it and there's just a little bit more notice. I understand that it's not required for an individual property, something that is sort of quick and easy. Totally support that. But when you're looking at a broader group of people who may have different opinions, I still think that's good policy, if not mandated by the court. So I look forward to supporting this and hearing the rest of the discussion tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate the work that's been. I think there's a lot of things that are being caught in this one. I do want to follow up with as an issue, I mean, as we're starting to see these, I really like it. I really think it really picks up the the spunk and the funk of local communities. I really like it. You go up and down Federal Boulevard, you go down Morrison Road and you see that right? And I rather see that in plastic banners and also because it doubles as a graffiti prevention tool. Right. And their jobs. Right. And it's a way to express themselves. I've seen, you know, we're able to get folks off of the street instead of doing this late at night on some empty fence without permission. Imagine being able to pay somebody to do that. And I know there's a lot of businesses that would rather pay to do that kind of art. Does that have their logo on their wall, on their own wall, rather than have to buy a $10,000 sign and keep it lit? It's not efficient. It's not energy efficient. Right. So I think we can it's a win win win. The second thing I do want to speak about the trailer parks. I really I like the ordinance language that exists because, you know, we have a better standard of living in the year 2014. And some of these trailers are not the kind of trailer parks that you see in other communities where they are double wides, where they are security find it was were well-planned a well-planned site. These are just feet away from each other. And in a lot of cases, they're turning into too many slums because nobody can fix them up. Why? Because they don't make those trailers anymore. They don't make the parts anymore. Some of them are made of asbestos. You can on the side and on the bottom, so you can't even touch them. I've took in so many folks around the trailer parks in our area. This was all initiated because folks who live in the parks are fed up with what they're having to live with and what they're stuck in. And what we have to be able to do is create a high level of standard, a high standard of living for all incomes. Right. I think single family homes, duplexes, apartments, all the other forms that exist in our code that are allowed are a better standard of living. We've had to see Parks shut down because of the units, because of the because they're not safe. Because they're not healthy. Right. Doesn't mean that we go around saying, okay, you got to get out. Got to get out, got to get out. But as we progressed decades from now, those things should be pretty much I mean, they're already outdated, but they should no longer exist. That standard of living should no longer exist really low. It's not safe. And imagine if a fire breaks out. We still have tornadoes in Denver. God forbid something like that hits. There's nowhere to go. There's no basement, there's no bathroom, there's nowhere to go. And we've always heard about this nationwide. You see trailers being thrown around like toy cars. And that's what most of them are. They're still considered vehicles. And some of these cases, they're being sold these homes when they're really being sold a vehicle without a title. And it just creates a situation where an area deteriorates, the standard of living deteriorates, and people's health and safety deteriorates along with it. And so, yes, it's a hard decision. Yeah. Does it make us look kind of bad doing it? Does it? Maybe it's a kind of getting the bad guy saying, Oh, no more trailer parks. Probably. But better than being in a city that still has that kind of living, that standard of living, that's not safe. That's not secure. And watching folks, their health or their lives disappear because of it. I'd rather be the bad guy and say, hey, look, you know what? Trailer parks shouldn't exist anymore in Denver. We have a better standard of living than a person who says, you know what, we're going is going to turn a blind eye on what's happening in these trailer parks. God forbid there's a fire or some kind of disaster and we lose lives because we didn't do anything about it on the front end. So I think there's a better standard of living in Denver. We have to keep that. We can't let that undermine. And also because we can't let trailers be the cop out for real affordable housing in Denver. That's all. That's all I got to say about that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Leavitt.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I won't belabor this. I'll just take a moment. I just want to thank the folks at CPD for the fantastic amount of work that went into putting this together, as well as previous text amendments and previous text amendments and previous text amendments and previous text amendments. When we passed the new zoning code in 2010, it was a gigantic document. We all paid an enormous amount of attention to it, focused on it, worked and worked it over for months and months and really years and years. And since then, CPD has kept faith with the knowledge that what we passed was the right thing to do, but we probably didn't get it exactly right. And so rather than simply sort of live with the document we produced CPD without all the fanfare of the, you know, passing a new zoning code has kept at it their nose to the grindstone, getting it writer and writer and writer every time. So that's not glamorous work, but it is a work worth acknowledging, at least, you know, when you guys come here and just want to know that I thank you for it. I also want to thank people in the community who have continued to focus on this and spend. I mean, the good folks at CPD, they're to be applauded, but they are paid for the work. People like Joel Noble aren't paid a penny. And we really appreciate the kind of work that he and others put into helping us get it right. So here's to getting it right, even though it's a long and sometimes tedious and boring process, but it's worth doing so. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Here, here. Councilman. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you very.
Speaker 5: Much, Madam President. Just a couple call outs. I'm very supportive of the parking reduction for senior housing. I think it's very common sense. I think, you know, some seniors are very active and still able to drive, but many choose to give up their their cars when they get to the point of transportation. That's public and access on the the trailer park issue. I just want to since I raised it, I think it's important to bring it to closure. So I recognize that what you've proposed is implementing a policy that, you know, it was passed by council many, many, many, many years ago. And I don't disagree totally with that policy. I certainly, you know, think that there are places in the state of Colorado where trailer parks are an affordable place for people to live in, you know, decent homes that are well-maintained and newer. And I've been to those places, you know, not far from our borders, and I've been to them in other cities in Colorado. And so I'm not one who believes that by definition that form of housing is substandard. I also recognize what Councilman Lopez has pointed out, which is that in Denver, you know, we do mostly have substandard , you know, parks. And I don't think that we should be apologetic and I think we should be aggressive in enforcing health and safety in those locations. I don't think preventing folks from putting new housing or a new new a new trailer in is necessarily the best way to aggressively protect health and safety. Right. I would rather see I would rather us take a different approach. I would rather us say we have a major priority on, you know, the health and safety of folks in these living situations. And our job is to go in and aggressively close down any that are any units, you know, or any parks that are substandard . It's to aggressively help to rehouse people in the affordable housing we're building and to plan for those sites future in terms and work to negotiate. Right. We can buy out you know. Owners if they do so willingly. We have an urban renewal authority, and that's what urban renewal authorities in many cities do, is they go after these really tough places and they work to, you know, purchase the land. So I think all of those would be better ways to go about this than preventing the inclusion of of new units. I recognize, though, that, you know, we're pretty late in the game here. And this is one piece of a very, very large package. So it's not a large enough piece for me to vote against it. But I really do think that that there are better and more more direct and more humane ways to go about it, because certainly at this point, if this has been our policy for years, it's clear to say that the deterioration is in part a result of our policy of not letting people upgrade. I mean, if you refuse to let people upgrade, you will get downgraded. And so. So I totally am not there on this piece, but it is one piece of a very, very large omnibus package. So I will support it. And then I will also commit to learning more about how we can address this more head on than than with this kind of approach. So thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Keach, thank you for bringing up that issue. I think it's an important one that we need to continue to have conversation about. We know that they've been grandfathered, but that doesn't mean that they haven't continued to exist since they were grandfathered. And what I have seen with those that I'm aware of is that most of them have been allowed to continue to deteriorate. So we do not want to create that environment that perpetuates that, you know, denigration of those communities because in most cases are very low income and we should be having provisions that address the ability to replace that housing. Either that or we should say if if we don't want them in the city, we should relocate and rebuild or do something else on those sites and be serious once and for all about whether or not we support them, their existence. And if we do, then we should allow a little bit greater flexibility that ensures that people are living in in a more safe and habitable environment. I want to thank staff for answering the many questions that my office had throughout this process. I appreciate the efforts on some of the provisions related to the regulating plan and the GDP that you all have worked to try to address to make it a little bit more clear and easy. There is one area that we did not talk about that I would like to begin a conversation about, and that's about the issue of micro-housing. And I know that it is a way of ensuring that we do have affordable housing. It's not going to be for everybody, but it just gives us one more potential tool we have to talk about, you know, where are the ideal locations? You know, are they on business corridors? Where where would be the most ideal locations for them? But I think it's it's the kind of housing that's starting to creep up all across the country. It is very affordable in those cities. In most cases, they don't have parking there next to transit or rail. And so I think this is something that we should begin to talk about. And I would love to get together with your folks and some people who are doing this in major cities across the country. So with that, I will be supporting these changes tonight as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. I would just like to add I would like to ditto what Councilman Levitt said about all the hard work of the planning departments and zoning and everything. It's a major accomplishment. I'd also like to add my thanks to the Land Use Committee because I know how hard they worked on it and to their chair , Councilwoman Robb, who we can always depend upon to ask the questions we can't even think about. So thank you very much, Councilwoman Robb. And to her Vice-Chair Councilman. Councilwoman Monteiro. Good. Good job. Good work. Okay. I think that we are ready for the roll call.
Speaker 0: Excuse me, I brown.
Speaker 3: But I Herndon. I can each layman i as Lopez, Ontario. However, I Ortega. I Rob Shepherd. I am president.
Speaker 1: I close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 3: Surveys are only.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes fill one or two does go past.
Speaker 4: Because.
Speaker 5: Congratulations.
Speaker 0: You get in 2011.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've been getting a little punchy. On Monday, April 21st, Council will hold required public hearings on the three zoning map amendment bills ordered published this evening. These are proposing changes at 2157 Downing Street, 32, 26 West 19th Avenue, and 1205 through 1275 Osage Street. Any protests against these bills must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, April 14th, 2014. Seeing no other business for this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: I doubt it.
Speaker 5: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
Speaker 0: Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community. You.
|
Bill
|
Amends the Denver Zoning Code per an “omnibus” package of substantive, clarifying and corrective changes through the entirety of the code. Amends the Denver Zoning Code per an “omnibus” package of substantive, clarifying and corrective changes through the entirety of the code. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-18-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03102014_14-0179
|
Speaker 3: No, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Do we have any communications?
Speaker 3: No, Madam President.
Speaker 1: We do have two proclamations this evening, and I have a distinct pleasure of reading the first one Proclamation number 179 in recognition of the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching bestowed upon Elizabeth Vinson Grabara, a Denver public school science teacher. You'll hear more about that later. Whereas the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching Award are the highest honors given by the United States government, specifically for K-12 mathematics and science, including computer science teaching. The awards were established by Congress in 1983 and annually. The Pay EMC Camps program authorizes the President to bestow this award on up to 108 individuals. And. WHEREAS, Awards are given to mathematics and science teachers from each of the 50 states and four U.S. jurisdictions, the award recognizes those teachers who develop and implement high quality instructional programs that enhance student learning. And. WHEREAS, the winners are selected by a panel of distinguished scientists, mathematicians, mathematicians and educators after a state level selection process is conducted. And. WHEREAS, on December 20th, 2013, President Obama named 102 mathematics and science teachers as recipients of the prestigious PMC t Award and Denver Public School teacher Elizabeth Vinson Grubb, WA from Carson Elementary was named as one of the 2013 winners of this very prestigious award. And. Whereas, the winners of this presidential honor will receive a $10,000 award from the National Science Foundation to be used at their discretion. The awardees are also invited to Washington, D.C., for an award ceremony and several days of celebratory events, including visiting with members of Congress and the administration. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and Council, City and County of Denver, Section one. The Denver City Council joins the U.S. government in honoring Miss Elizabeth Vincent Gregoire for her inspiration, leadership and high quality contributions she's given to her students and in her profession. And Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Ms.. Elizabeth Benson grab wa. And so I will move and hope that my fellow council members will join me in making a motion to adopt Proclamation number 179. And it looks like I have a second and now we will go with comments. I love it when I make proclamations. I can tell what we're going to do next. I know. Not yet. We're going. I, I just I am so excited because Carson school is about three blocks from home and of course is in District five. And it's the school where my daughter went to school for her grade school and has such fond memories for me. But to have this award be awarded to a school in Denver, which is so wonderful in District five, in my neighborhood, and I'm so proud that we have such a teacher in our midst and has inspired all these young learners at Carson. And you should have seen them today. The mayor did a proclamation at the school today. She got about three standing ovations from these absolutely darling children in the school that are so excited to have such a teacher on their on their faculty. And she continues to inspire them every day. And just especially in science and math. And she's a. Girl, which makes it even more special because of the message that that sends to boys and girls. But we're so very proud to have you here. And I would like to ask my fellow council people to please vote in favor of this and see no other comments. Mr. Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: On the president.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Brooks. Hi, Brown. Hi. Hi, Herndon. Hi, Damon by Lopez. Hi, monteiro. I never. Hi, rob. I shepard.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: I'm just waiting on lehman.
Speaker 4: And no payments.
Speaker 3: Doesn't work.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll do that.
Speaker 1: Okay. There you go. Okay. Ms.. Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes, earnings.
Speaker 1: 11 ICAO, nays. It is unanimous. The proclamation is adopted. And I would now like to call Ms.. Chrissie Faraci up to the podium because I think she's going to make a little introduction, and I think she has a couple of Carson students with her. Christie isn't the one that the proclamation is about, but she is our introducer.
Speaker 4: Hi. Members of Denver City Council and Honorable Denver City Council president something that says then I'm Chrissie Faraci and I live at 240 south for us in District five. I'm a proud parent of these two characters.
Speaker 1: Sophia Faraci and Nick Faraci.
Speaker 4: Nic had the pleasure of having Ms.. Vincent Gregoire for two years in second and in third grade. Now, most of you know me. You know my kids. You've probably heard the stories about the infamous NEC who's here in Kermit. You know, he was not held back. She was promoted to third grade, and he was lucky enough to have.
Speaker 1: Her for two years in a row.
Speaker 4: And I cannot tell you the difference it had made in my son's education and especially in math and science.
Speaker 1: It is by far and.
Speaker 4: Between his strongest subject. Sophia is lucky enough to now have Ms. grab LA as her assistant principal. So we are so thrilled. This is a huge honor for Denver Public School. It's a huge honor for Carson and even bigger honor and so well-deserved for Ms.. Gregoire. And thank you so much for sponsoring this proclamation in her honor. And so with that, here's the honored guest.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, city council President Sussman and the city of Denver for inviting me here today. This is a huge.
Speaker 5: Recognition for.
Speaker 1: Me, and I'm I'm completely honored to be here. I recognize that with this recognition comes a responsibility to continue to promote science and mathematics education in our city and our state. I just want to keep moving forward with STEM education and promoting opportunities for students to have meaningful hands on science experiences in their classroom. And as new standards come and new challenges, we just need to keep this in mind of how important this is for the nation, for the future of our nation. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics should always be on our minds when we're thinking of even elementary schoolchildren and giving them those opportunities to fall in love with science and mathematics. So I'm so honored to be here, and I just want to thank you again for recognizing me here this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you for making us so proud. We have another proclamation. I am very. I have to give my apologies. I need to vacate this particular seat. But I was so excited to be able to hear your wonderful presentation. And I am taking my hat even though I can't stay here. But thank you very much for the hat. And I'd like to turn the meeting of procedures over to the president pro tem councilman Herndon.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching honor bestowed upon Elizabeth Grabois, a Denver Public School Science Teacher.
A proclamation recognizing The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching honor bestowed upon Elizabeth Grabois, a Denver Public School Science Teacher.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03102014_14-0042
|
Speaker 3: All right. We are going to move forward to the council proclamation for to congratulating the Denver St Patrick's Day parade coming on the occasion of their 52nd annual parade and sponsored by Councilwoman Monteiro. Will you please read Proclamation 42?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation number 400 for two congratulating the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee on the occasion of the 52nd Annual Parade on March 15th, 2014. And it reads. Whereas Denver has one of the largest St Patrick's Day parade in the United States and the largest parade west of the Mississippi. And. Whereas, this year the theme is Sweet Home Colorado, which pays tribute to the citizens by birth or the citizens by transplant. We all share one love for our great state that we call home. And. WHEREAS, the Denver St Patrick's Day parade exemplifies how diverse people can gather together with a glance at the past and a look to the future while enjoying the pipe and drum bands, Irish step dancing and honoring all divisions of our military to the delight of over 200,000 spectators. Whereas, congratulations and thanks to all volunteers of the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee, including many who have passed on but are still remembered for their endless hours and never ending commitment , which makes this celebration possible. And. Whereas, we hope the Colorado Sun and the Mile High Air lifts the spirits of all who march or watch the 52nd Annual Parade this Saturday, March 15th, 2014. And we hope for a warm wind at our backs as we celebrate. Now, therefore, he had proclaimed by the counsel of the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby congratulates the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade, a volunteer organization on a well-organized, peaceful and spirited gathering at the 52nd annual event. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted transmitted to Dan Lagrange, president of the Denver St Patrick's Day Committee.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Martel. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 40 to be adopted.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and second hand comments by members of Council Counsel Monteiro.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. This is such an exciting part of the city's history. Every. Every year. So we have the holidays and then, you know, there's a little bit of a slump there. And then it's time for National Western. And then there's a little bit of a slump there. And now it's time for the Saint Patrick's Day parade. And the weather is so beautiful today, so it couldn't be more fitting. But I want to say that this committee is a charitable organization with all committed volunteers. Each member I've noticed has a deep love for the Irish culture and enjoys sharing that sense of pride with the entire Denver community. With year round effort culminating with the Parade Parade Day event in 1972, over 30,000 people watch the parade. The temperature was a balmy 71 degrees. This was the first time the parade claimed it was the second largest, second only to New York City Thursday prior to the parade. Mayor Hancock and myself would join the parade committee in renaming YRC Street, where it crosses 17th Street to Tooley Street in honor of Dale Tully, our former district attorney for Denver and a longtime supporter of the parade. The parade marshals have the task to stage thousands of people, all in order in just 3 hours. That's deal with horses. Bands lost kids and trees as large as 50 vehicles. Elected officials, VIP's and just about every kind of culture, military organization and dancing organization. Their day starts at 6 a.m. and does not stop until the staging lot is cleared. Planning takes nearly a year, and yet they do what they do with love. The 2014 grand marshal is John Chandler, who is awarded the 2000 2009 Spur Award for the best song from the Western Writers of America for his song, Linwood. He was also named 2009 Best Living Western Musician by True With Magazine. So, Mr. President, it's with my honor to sponsor this proclamation and ask for support from my colleagues as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilman Nevitt. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know why Councilwoman Monteiro got that cool looking beret, and I'm wearing that, but that's okay.
Speaker 0: We're all Irish on St Patrick's Day. This event is always.
Speaker 4: Always in.
Speaker 0: 30 seconds. It'll be on Facebook.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 0: This event is always is always fun.
Speaker 3: And the the committee does a fantastic job putting it, not just putting.
Speaker 6: It together, but also making it an occasion where everyone.
Speaker 0: Is brought together.
Speaker 6: Denver's a diverse city.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 0: All its diversity is.
Speaker 6: Represented at the St Patrick's Day parade, which is very cool.
Speaker 3: There's also a lot of.
Speaker 6: Remembered.
Speaker 0: At the St Patrick's Day parade.
Speaker 3: And, you know, someone like.
Speaker 6: Dave Dale truly gets remembered. But I would never.
Speaker 3: Want to forget one of the city and county's own Walt.
Speaker 6: Becker, who was a.
Speaker 3: So that's it. Mr. President, I just wanted to.
Speaker 0: Remember Uncle Walt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Do we have any other comments from members of council seen on Mr. Secretary? Roll call?
Speaker 4: Montero I.
Speaker 3: Never I. Trump I covered. I'm proud, i. But I. Lemon Lopez. All right. The president. Hi. Councilman Rob. So hanging fire. And that is it. Mr. Secretary, please call the voting and announce the results tonight. As Ernie and I, the resolution has been proclamation excuse me, has been adopted. Councilman Montero. I do not see anybody here. Is there anybody you want to call for, Father?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Accepting the proclamation will be Theresa miller. No. Did I say right? Miller, Rog? No. The public relations chair. And please feel free to bring up other members of the committee to accept this proclamation. And, Diane, you're welcome to. Come on. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of our council, and especially Councilwoman Monteiro. I'd like to introduce you to some amazing people. Our board of Directors for the Parade Committee, whose leadership has seriously inspired close to 300 people whose dedication is unwavering. To put the best parade on the streets of Denver for the citizens of Colorado, and I'd like to have all of our board members please stand. And now I'd like to introduce to you a woman who actually her mother in law was one of the original parade organizers in Denver. And how it happened was her husband, Buck Lagrange, invited her to a meeting long ago and she said, okay, I'll go, but don't ask me to do anything. And now she's the president of the largest parade west of the Mississippi, gathering people and accomplishing amazing things for our city. And her mother in law, no longer with us, but with us in spirit, would be so very proud of the work that you've done. Mrs. Diane Lagrange. Thank you very much. Mr. President, City Council members. We gratefully accept this proclamation and thank you for support of the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee throughout our 52 year history . There are over 300 volunteers who have invested thousands of hours yearlong to bring this event to the streets of Denver. We expect over 250,000 spectators coming together on parade day to celebrate the Irish culture. Our theme, Sweet Home Colorado pays tribute to all of us who call Colorado home. And I am a second generation Coloradoan. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you once again.
Speaker 3: So much. And thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro, for bringing that. We're looking forward to that at the end of the week. We are now ready for their resolutions. Mr. Secretary, will you please read the resolutions from Health, Safety, Education and Services?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation congratulating the Denver St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee on the Occasion of the 52nd Annual Parade on March 15, 2014
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03032014_14-0178
|
Speaker 3: We do have two proclamations this evening, and I have the good fortune to read Proclamation 178 endorsing imagined 2020 Denver's Cultural Plan. It is sponsored by myself, Councilman Layman and Councilman Monteiro. In principle. I mean, principally. Whereas great cities have great arts, culture and create creativity. And. Whereas, arts, culture and creativity contribute greatly to Denver's economy and its residents quality of life. And. WHEREAS, The City's commitment to the arts is seen through the 25th anniversary of its public art program, its distinctive neighborhood art district's world class venues, museums and cultural programs. Support for creative businesses. And. WHEREAS, Denver arts and venues along with the officer office of Mayor Michael Hancock, the Office of Economic Development and many other community partners all work to engage residents and visitors in the development of a culture. A Plan to be for Denver by Denver. And. Whereas, Denver arts and venues worked with the community to craft a shared vision of Denver's cultural future and will work with community partners and engage residents to achieve this vision. And. Whereas, implementation of the plan will build on Denver's strong foundation of arts culture and created creativity to advance creative sector business, improve access to arts education for children and adults, and increase the availability of arts and culture in Denver's neighborhoods. And. Whereas, Denver City Council recognizes that endorsement of this plan is a step toward its implementation, and that support for the continued development of arts, culture and creativity in Denver is an investment in the city that will pay dividends for generations to come. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby endorses. Imagine 2020 Denver's Cultural Plan prepared by Denver Arts and venues that the Clerk of Section two that the Clerk of the City and County of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Kent Rice, Executive Director of Arts and Venues. It is my pleasure to move that the proclamation be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. I'll ask for comments from Council Councilwoman Lehman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Just the opening of this.
Speaker 6: Meeting shows you how.
Speaker 5: Wonderful the arts are in any single setting at all.
Speaker 6: And just gives you a little bit.
Speaker 7: Of hope.
Speaker 5: For this. This plan is for Denver's future. So, again, thank you guys very much. You were terrific.
Speaker 3: And having a.
Speaker 7: Plan, we spent, um, I.
Speaker 5: Was on the committee to work on the plan, and we spent months and months and months doing it. You can look at it if you go to Denver gov dot dot org and go to cultural planner. Imagine 2020. Okay. Denver gov dawg. Imagine 2020. And it's just.
Speaker 7: A wonderful first step.
Speaker 5: To a wonderful vision for Denver's future. So I'd like to thank everybody who has written that plan.
Speaker 7: I'd like to.
Speaker 6: Thank our two.
Speaker 5: Venues who have worked really hard so far to get this done. And I just can't wait to see what the next step is. So thank you all very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. I would also like to add my congratulations to the hard work of the your team and to all the people that were involved. I understand that you got input from 5000 people and combined that to for a vision for a cultural plan for Denver that I think is going to be very meaningful for the livability of this city. It already is very livable. You're just going to make it so and I'm so pleased to bring this proclamation forward and so happy with the plan that you all are outlining for us. Oh, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just want to ask that my name be added to the proclamation, and I want to extend my appreciation to arts and venues for the extensive outreach, not only gathering input, but also sharing information with folks about the findings from that input. You all have done just an outstanding job in reaching out to the community to let them know what this is all about. And this is just yet another example of helping to educate the community about that.
Speaker 3: So thanks for your work. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I'm really excited after attending today's luncheon to be able to learn more about the plan. So congratulations and great speech today, Ken Rice. But I, I, I join in the celebration because for us in Council District nine, we live and breathe cultural arts through programs like the Urban Art Fund Arts more accessible at the neighborhood level. And art in every neighborhood is a priority for all of us. And I'd like to see every neighbor. Could enjoy the magnificence of arts and all that it does for our city. Even in River North, where we have the Rhino Arts District there, the growing opportunities to nurture and develop art in a lot of our spaces. I also want to acknowledge the other art districts in my council district Santa Fe Arts River, North Navajo Street, and the others that are pockets that I may or may not know of. And if I didn't see it, I'm sure I'm going to find out tomorrow. But I just want to tell you that for me, I know Denver is a huge sports town, and I like that, too. But I also know that Denver is a huge cultural arts community, and that is that's the root for all of us. And so thank you very much for doing this. And now you have a plan and now you have to get to work. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 7: Sorry, but I cannot let this proclamation go by without making some comments. And what I was thinking about as I listen to this and just thinking about arts and culture in Denver, Denver is I believe I read, if I'm remembering my history correctly, that some of the biggest advocates for Civic Center Park was a group called the Women's Art League way back around the turn of the century. And then, I believe a mayor or maybe it was Mayor Webb or Mayor Paine is started the Mayor's Commission on Arts and Culture. And then we made that more of a separate department under Hickenlooper. And then when we really went to arts and venues, change came a little with a little bit of difficulty like are we going to lose the arts somewhere and be only about venues? And that certainly has not happened. I think it really provided sort of the catalyst for moving this along. And speaking of another catalyst, I'm so excited about the work being done on the McNichols Building, the old Carnegie Library in Civic Center Park, just to circle around to where my comments started, because I think we will have both a really strong Office of Arts venues in a really identifiable, identifiable place where that sits and is located along with all the other wonderful institutions that our neighborhood. But that can be sort of a hub for us. So congratulations to all of you, and thank you for your hard work.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Rob. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I, too, would like to add my name to the record as a supporter of this proclamation. And one thing I just want to mention really briefly is that arts are great for business, right? And anyone who, you know, who doubts that, just take a look at Austin or New York or Las Vegas and , you know, some of the wonderful performing arts and music and other types of things that those cities have. And every year we get to boast more and more opportunities for both our citizens and folks that are visiting to check out the many wonderful things that are going on in the city from our incredible visual arts programs to our great theater programs and our burgeoning local music scene, which our council secretary is helping to highlight on a show called the Denver Laugh Sessions that we premiere right on this channel, Channel eight. So I think every year we get more and more on the map as being, you know, a great cultural city and.
Speaker 2: It's great for our local economy, too.
Speaker 6: So I'm happy to support this and just look.
Speaker 2: Forward to all the great work that's going to come out of the plan.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Mr. Secretary, it looks like it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: All right, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I guess I wrote I.
Speaker 1: But I. Herndon. I can each name in five. Lopez. Montero.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Ortega. Hi, Rob. All right. Shepard.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Zero names.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: Why, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Very appreciative eyes, no nays. The proclamation is adopted. Now we have another special performance. I would like to invite the poet Jose Guerrero to the podium. Jose Carneiro has been featured on the HBO special Brave New Voices in 2010 and was a guest poet at ten X in 2011. Now a student at the University of Denver. Jose got his start in spoken word right here in town at Café Kaltura. Jose will be performing a poem for us tonight. And you are on a cool.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It's such an honor. And so I'm just going to go in and read my poem. I hope you guys enjoy. As an educator, I often find myself arguing for the importance of art in our classrooms. I go on and on about its potential to empower our youth and its ability to transform traumatic life experiences into beautiful pieces of art. For those who remain skeptical. I challenge you to take it up with the big blue bear. Yeah, that's right. And as you stand there looking right into the big blue bears, but you will smile and you will realize that that small moment of joy could be the most important lesson we could ever teach our kids. For me, this love was started when I was in the streets walking through the west side of Denver. I saw some of the most powerful paintings written on the walls. The graffiti is vibrant colors reflected how most of us felt inside. Something about seeing names on the wall gave us the feeling of ownership we never obtained through mortgage contracts. Many of my friends would stay up all night searching for the perfect spot a wall that was worthy of their masterpiece. They felt like little kids aligning alphabetical magnets onto the city's fridge. They wrote short poems on bricks because their schools failed to provide them paper. Their artwork never lasted very long before that short time. They turned our alleys into art galleries and trash cans into anthologies. They are the seeds that birthed the roses that now grow in the Santa Fe art district. Yet they were never cited in the government documents. I have witnessed art nourish a community in ways that politicians could never imagine. Like the time that mural was spray painted across the street from the middle school. The mural was a desperate cry. Cease fire. I watched members of opposing gangs come together using the colors of the rags to spray paint the words barrio unity, a treaty attempting to end gay brown on brown violence. And there hasn't been a drive by on that corner since I have listened to spoken word artists and hip hop artists communicate and mobilize the people in the language that academia has deemed worthless. The same words that donors used to describe our services, like helping a kid get through a rough day isn't worth the investment because happiness isn't an accurate measurement of success. But you tell that to the little girl who feels unbreakable when she hip hop on the dance floor. You tell that to the gay boy who just came out to his parents and a poem. You tell that to the musicians who use this to bounce the sounds of the parents arguing off their instruments. Our youth are our future. Let us give them the tools they need to paint themselves a better world. Thank you. I want.
Speaker 3: Second arrow. Thank you for sharing your words with us. They are very empowering and compelling. And thank you again to the Denver Jazz Club. Can you believe the sound that came out of that? That group, they are great and they travel all over the United States to entertain us. So let's give a young another round of applause for all these young performers because they make Denver an artist. And now I would like to invite to the podium our acclaimed Mr. Kent Rice. No, the band was not named after Kent Reiss. It was named in front of him, he told me, though. Welcome, Kent and Ginger White. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for this proclamation. Thank you to our entertainers. That poem was moving. It was amazing.
Speaker 1: Anyway, we're very grateful to accept this proclamation and a great debt of gratitude to Ginger, why she did so much of the heavy lifting for this great ginger.
Speaker 3: Did you want to say a few words? Oh, I just wanted to say thank you both. I thank you all so much.
Speaker 2: We had a chance to brief you all individually, and it was a pleasure to walk through the plan with you. We're so proud of it. We're so proud of what we're delivering to the city of Denver on behalf of the city of Denver, because it really was a community wide plan. And I stand on the shoulder of some great teammates behind me who made this all possible. So thank you all for your for your help and helping us implement it as well.
Speaker 0: The one of the phrases that came up from our 5000 people who provided input and it's the thing on which our clothes was we are Denver Oh, that's great.
Speaker 3: Congratulations. That's really great. We look forward to folding of the plan. Well, we do have another proclamation, and I'll call on Councilman Brooks to recap. Proclamation number 176.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation endorsing IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan A proclamation endorsing IMAGINE 2020: Denver’s Cultural Plan
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03032014_14-0176
|
Speaker 3: Congratulations. That's really great. We look forward to folding of the plan. Well, we do have another proclamation, and I'll call on Councilman Brooks to recap. Proclamation number 176.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. And because I'm so inspired by Jose, I'm going to read this poetically recognizing Denver. And I'm just thankful that that was really good. Proclamation number 176, recognizing Denver's women commission's unveiling their year long assessment windows into Denver's Women and girls. Whereas on March 11th, 1985, Denver City Council adopted an ordinance creating Denver's Women's Commission as the result of the March 20th, 1984 forum on women's issues attended by more than 300 Denver women. And. Whereas, in 1986, the Commission issued a report on the status of Denver women and girls. And. Whereas, since the time of the Commission, it has added as voices to Denver women to public policy debates through information, civic engagement, and by creating awareness of women's related initiatives, thereby becoming recognized statewide, statewide as an advocate on women issues. And. Whereas, in the fall of 2012, the Commission decided to assess the document. The critical issues facing Denver women and girls selecting three subject matter priorities, including the mayor's budget priorities, which is jobs, education, youth and safety, safety net. And. WHEREAS, the intent of the assessment was to create a long term, relevant blueprint for which the Commission would identify and prioritize issues and relevant activities to effectively advocate on behalf of Denver women and girls. And. WHEREAS, the assessment was created with the assistance of various Denver agencies and departments and included a one day hearing on May 10th, 2013 at which 19 different Denver organizations testified. And. WHEREAS, The assessment also creates many opportunities for the Commission to fulfill the mission through the role of Convener, by bringing together relevant city entities, community organizations, groups within the community to methodically implement and progressive women's agenda based upon the needs of the community. Full time employees and those city agencies and their women were underrepresented. Number two, appointing more female county court judges. Number three, housing, including adopting and implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Homelessness. Number four, analyzing the status of and to attract retain female DIA concessionaires. Number five, transport issue transportation issues. Number six, education, particularly the intersection of poverty and teen pregnancy in those parts of the city the city identified in the assessment and. Whereas at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 4th, I hope you guys are there. 2014 The Denver Women's Commission is formally unveiling its assessment assessment windows into the Denver women and girls, and at that event, the writ in the rotunda of the city and county building with speakers, including the Mayor Michael Hancock, and a summary of the key findings. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the county, the Council of the City and County of Denver. Her section wanted the city and county. The City Council hereby recognizes Denver's women commit commissions for their work on behalf of Denver women and girls and looks forward to utilizing the assessment as a resource in coordination with the Commission to identify and prioritize issues to improve the lives of different women and girls. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal on the city and county Denver to this proclamation that a copy be transmitted to the Denver Women's Commission.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President. I move that proclamation 176 to be adopted.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by counsel. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. It is a distinct honor and privilege to be able to bring this proclamation forward. As you can see, I am not a woman, but I am an incredible advocate for women in the city of Denver, social opportunities, political opportunities, and also employment. You know, I tell the story that my all the women in my family, about seven of them all have masters, degrees and PhDs. And all the men are just grunt workers. And and so I come from you know, I come from a family of strong, strong women. And so I'm so excited to to present this proclamation. We had the opportunity to have the Women's Commission come to our Health and Safety Committee. And it was just extraordinary to see that the individuals first. What most people don't understand is that folks on our commission do not get paid. These are all volunteers. These are all individuals who have an incredible passion and a vision for our city. And this assessment that was put together, which I just encourage each of council folks up here and also folks in the audience to take a look through it. It is exhaustive and it is well done. And, you know, one of the things that I thought about, I was like, there is a lot of sweat equity in this document as they began to talk about all the different agencies and cross-references and cross tabs that they had to do to get the information just right. I was just blown away. And so I'm excited to celebrate the Women's Commission, but more importantly, celebrate the women in Denver, because this is groundbreaking material that are going to provide opportunities for a lot of individuals, including my two sweet daughters, Kaia in Kenya. And Kaia is two and Kenya is four. And she has no idea the hard work that these individuals in the Women's Commission have put together to bring out this document. So I wanted to congratulate the Women's Commission and on behalf of city council, say job well done. And just point out there is this is my favorite page in here and it's page nine. And it it really goes through, you know, basic information and every agency in the city. How many female employees do we have and how many male employees do we have? And in some agencies, we are killing it, doing a great job with city attorneys. That just kind of shocked me. And then some we need a lot more work. And so this assessment really shows us where to put our focus and more importantly, where to put the the Women's Commission, make sure that they are focusing on the issues that the data show. So thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I, too, would like to add my name to the record as a sponsor for this proclamation and also offer my hearty congratulations to the hard work of the Denver's Women's Commission on this very substantive and comprehensive.
Speaker 2: Assessment of women's issues in Denver.
Speaker 6: I grew up in a working poor family.
Speaker 2: In the South with a.
Speaker 6: Mother who worked at an entry level job and was basically the head of our household, you know? And then, you know, later in my life when I lived in Denver and I was single for such a long time and I struggled so much to always, you know, try to get ahead in this city. Like, I feel like so much of the work that you focus on and, you know, I've lived most of it, you know, and when I actually was in college and I started studying women's issues and eventually became a.
Speaker 2: Minor in women's studies and all these pieces of the puzzle, you know, started fitting.
Speaker 6: Together in my head. I really developed.
Speaker 2: A passion around these issues and.
Speaker 6: Trying to, you know, really help lift up women in our community and to push these issues ahead. So, you know, I'm just very thankful for you all being engaged and. Participating in our community. And, you know, what is a.
Speaker 2: Group without its members and leadership. And I was so welcome, so glad to welcome you all.
Speaker 6: To District One when you held your first community women's meeting. And I looked around that room and I realized that I knew at least half of the women that were on that board because I had worked with them in some capacity or the other. And I could attest to the talent and the passion and the energy of that group. So you've got a great group working together on this issue, and I just want to throw kudos out to Kim Desmond for her, you know, exemplary leadership as well, because, you know, I know you've had a lot to do with helping make sure this happens. So congratulations.
Speaker 2: And I'm very happy to celebrate.
Speaker 6: With you all and looking forward to your recommendations on, you know, how council specifically can help you move some of those issues forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Just to thread together both of our proclamations and the Oscars, because who can resist.
Speaker 3: Waiting to hear? You know.
Speaker 2: I yeah, I was walking to the luncheon the arts and venues cultural plan luncheon today through the convention center. And I don't know if anyone else walked through the building, but it was filled with men, just thousands and thousands of men in corners and on computers. And it was the physics conference, and they were men from across the world. And and it struck me there were a few women. And it's one of those moments where you start to think, perhaps we have not yet totally finished the work that we have to do. And so sometimes we get asked the question, why? You know, why focus on this. You have so many women up here on this council. And but but, you know, walking through an experience like that and thinking about the acceptance speech. Right. Of our of our of our lead actress last night and saying, you know, it's still women. Women can be the prime time attraction, right. In the arts. And but yet they're still struggling to convince those who invest in the arts. And so I think that really it's a really important thing that the plan that you've put out is very actionable. And I think that's also something that's great about the cultural planning. You know, we talk about what are these things, where are they going to go, are they going to sit on shelves? But what I think is great about both of them is they have these really concrete suggestions. Right. You know, women need to be able to afford to live in the city and they're struggling with that. Or, you know, artists have a hard time affording to live in the city. There's so many interesting things in there that we can address and childcare, access and all of the things you touch on. So so I want to say that I'm very excited that we haven't yet decided that the work is done here. It may look differently than it did for our predecessors and the women whose shoulders that we stand on. But clearly, you know, the torch is being carried forward to continue even in the subtler ways that these challenges occur. And I appreciate that and I support it. And, you know, I dedicate myself to help in any way I can to help carry these issues forward. So thank you for your work.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman can reach Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilman Brooks for your sponsorship of this proclamation and to the Denver Women's Council. Just a few quick facts. Women comprise 390 591,000, about 49% of the total population or half of Denver residents. The median age for females in Denver is 33.9. Nearly a third of Denver's female population, 78,819, is under the age of 21. I have a 14 year old daughter. The Denver area neighborhoods with the highest percentage of women all ages living in poverty include Sun Valley, which is 67%. Valverde, which is 49%. Llama Lincoln Park 42%. Westwood 38%. And College View South Platte 37%. So what I want to say is this assessment is long overdue and I want to thank you very much for doing it. The women, the windows in Denver, women and girls. In order to identify the priority issues and the relevant activities that will generate discussion and action for women. This yearlong assessment effort will pay off when a clear direction based on the realities of where the assessment is focused and aligned by all the city agencies and community organizations. I want to tell you, practically speaking, how this assessment helps me. Three of the five neighborhoods with the highest number of women that are living in poverty are in my district, Sun Valley, against 67%, Valverde, 49, and Lama Lincoln Park, 42. So these findings and future opportunity for Action and Commission work are relevant and timely. The topics of jobs, education, youth safety and the safety net are all critical in bringing our women out of poverty and leveling the playing field for women overall. So I want to thank you very, very much. I sat on the Women's Commission a long time ago, and we were always trying to figure out how do we get our arms around the women that live in the city of Denver? So this is a remarkable assessment. And I want to thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. And it looks like it's time for a roll call.
Speaker 0: Brooks Hi. Brown I.
Speaker 1: Thought.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon. I can each i. Lehman, I. Lopez Hi. Monteiro Hi.
Speaker 6: Ortega Hi.
Speaker 1: Rob. Hi. Sheppard Hi, Adam.
Speaker 3: President Hi, Mr. Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. Supervisor In 12 eyes, the proclamation is adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there somebody you would like to call up to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 0: There sure is. There's a lot of folks here, but I'm called McKenzie Ruby Squash and she can call up anybody else that she wants to.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. And I would like to ask the commissioners that are present today and Kim Desmond to also join me up here. This certainly was a labor of love and could not have been done without our entire commission. So just a small representation here with Jessica Schiavo and Kimberly Desmond. And first, would love to start off by thanking all of you for your support. Councilman Brooks touched on six areas that we have brought forward to the mayor, and I'm sure he'll be leaning on all of you as well to help encourage more women to be concessionaires at DIA, to help bring up the number of women who are working in our city government to look at the women we are appointing as judges and many other areas that we can touch on. I had to laugh when we started researching the commission. The commission and I are actually the exact same age of so 1985 great year and being born to an amazing feminist. I've been very aware of how we have and have not changed in the 29 years that have gone by. And I think one of the things that I would really like to recognize today is what a wonderful city Denver is and how far women can come. And what a wonderful picture you all paint of that. This is an incredibly diverse council and I have no doubt that in 1985 it looked very different. So it's exciting to be able to lead by example through our council and show what diversity can do to make a world class city. Again, I would like to really mirror the words of Councilman Brooks and invite you all to our party and unveiling tomorrow, 5 to 7 in the rotunda. So the first thing you could do is come and support us there. And then lastly, as has been mentioned by several of you, we have taken our meetings into the community and we started off by going with the different organizations that supported us at the hearing for this assessment. And so that's really how we've chosen our initial list. But going forward, we'd like to be very thoughtful and ensure that our 12 meetings of year are held in different districts throughout the city, and we would invite you to come join us for those. We would also invite you to bring forward issues that you may be working on that greatly impact the Denver women and girls so that we can help build our agenda around that. And so those are some of the concrete things we would ask for in your support of this assessment. Again, thank you all so much. We greatly appreciate it. And of course, a great thanks to our commissioners and to Ken, who have done so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much and congratulations. Two great proclamations. Okay. And moving on. Let's do resolutions. Mr. Secretary, would you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the Denver Women Commission’s unveiling of their year-long assessment: Windows into Denver’s Women and Girls. A proclamation recognizing the Denver Women Commission’s unveiling of their year-long assessment: Windows into Denver’s Women and Girls.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02242014_13-0501
|
Speaker 6: on. As you all know, you heard lots of testimony about how this is part of the cost that we see at our various waste streams, because the bags jam the machines at our recycling facility at Waste Management, that that are bad facility, that waste management runs, they have to hire someone to pick up the plastic bags. I mean, I could go on and on. But basically what we're doing is postponing this for a year to allow that process to take place that will incorporate bags into part of that conversation and ensure that we have some concrete effort that comes out of that overall process dealing with plastic bags and hopefully plastic bag reduction and encouraging the use of reusable bags.
Speaker 5: Okay. Just to let everybody know, we have we have a first of a motion to take it out of order and then we are going to have a motion to amend. And Councilwoman Ortega is going to give the particulars to the amendment. And then we are going to have a motion to order it published as amended. So we have three motions that we are going to go through. The first one is to take it out of order. Mr. Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Ortega. I. Rob Shepherd, i. Brooks, i. Brown. No.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I can teach my layman.
Speaker 0: Lopez, I.
Speaker 2: Montero I.
Speaker 0: Never i. And I'm president.
Speaker 5: I mean, we're waiting for Brown, Montero and Ortega to vote.
Speaker 2: Montero just loaded. Okay?
Speaker 5: It's just not showing up there. All right. You got her vote, though.
Speaker 0: It hasn't. It hasn't gone in.
Speaker 5: I don't know. She verbally said.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right, Mr. Secretary, close the voting, announce the results of those.
Speaker 0: One day.
Speaker 5: 12 eyes one. Nay, it is passed that we take this out of order now. Councilman Ortega, we need your motion to Madam President.
Speaker 6: Now I move to amend Council Bill 13 five one the following particulars on page six strike lines 26 to 28 and insert the following sections 48 through 128 effective dates. The provision of this ordinance shall be effective April 22nd, 2015, which happens to be Earth Day. The manager shall develop and implement the administrative and financial process for collection of the fee between the effective date of this ordinance and April 22nd, 2015. On page eight, lines 21, 23 and 27, strike 2013, insert 2015.
Speaker 5: Okay. It has been moved and seconded. Sorry, I just said oh, okay. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilman Rob.
Speaker 6: Can I explain this before we go into.
Speaker 5: Oh, sure. Okay. I'm sorry that you had to.
Speaker 6: So the amendment changes the effective date of Council Bill 451. The implementation due to the proposed one year postponement of the Council's final consideration of the proposed ordinance. As you know, the current ordinance had Earth Day 2014 in it, and this changes the effective date to 2015. So all we're doing is changing the date in the ordinance to be to reflect the 2015 date.
|
Bill
|
Councilmember Ortega – Plastic and paper bag fee proposal. Proposed CB13-0501 to Amend Chapter 48 (Solid Waste) of the Revised Municipal 6 Code to add an Article IX (Disposable Bag Fees).
a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposed CB13-0501. c) Discussion. (Health, Safety, Education & Services) Amend Chapter 48 (Solid Waste) of the Revised Municipal 6 Code to add an Article IX (Disposable Bag Fees).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02182014_14-0096
|
Speaker 3: Thank you. But we do have two proclamations this evening, and I would like to call on Councilwoman Kennish to read the first one. Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce proclamation number 14, Dash 96 in solidarity to stand against bullying in Denver, public schools, organizations and the community at large. Whereas bullying is the most common form of violent act in our society and can have tremendous negative impacts on victims. Bullying is generally recognized as repeated abusive, offensive, malicious, intimidating and or insulting behaviors, or the abuse of power directed at an individual or a group. And. Whereas, as a result of increased bullying attacks on local refugee youth and adults and continuing threats to get high school students in Denver, the Getty Commission in 2011 began a policy review with other commissioners to address the growing societal problem. And. WHEREAS, in 2012, Denver Commissioners proposed that the Human Rights and Community Partnerships Advisory Board develop a citywide commission statement against bullying to encourage the city and community leaders to take action against these behaviors. And. Whereas, under the leadership of HRC Advisory Board co-chairs Jane Francis, Shazia and John Kelly, a committee of Advisory Board members was convened representing the Denver Women's Commission. Jill Beatty Commission. American Indian Commission. Latino Commission. African American Commission. Commission on Aging. Commission for People with Disabilities and the Denver Asian Pacific American Commission. The committee researched and drafted a position statement against bullying that integrated and reflect the existing City and Commission priorities to respect and value people from all walks of life and to mirror the city's vision that everyone matters. Whereas, on June 26, 2013, the Agency of HRC P and its Commission delegates under the Mayor from the Denver Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Commission, African-American Commission, Latino Commission, Women's Commission, Asian Pacific American Commission, Commission on Aging, American Indian Commission. Commission for People with Disabilities and Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Commission and the Denver Immigrant and Refugee Commission voted to approve the position statement against bullying to represent a collaborative effort to partner against bullying and to promote educational awareness and intervention for the prevention of bullying in our schools and in our Denver communities. And. Whereas, all commissions have been encouraged to incorporate the anti-bullying statement and intent into their 2014 goals, the position statement has helped to encourage Denver Public Schools representatives to include anti-bullying and harassment policies in their parent student handbook and at the Agency of HRC and Commissions collaborate to develop a communication strategy that includes a training component or a public service announcement on Denver's Channel eight to encourage city residents to take a stand against bullying, now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the Denver City Council honors and supports the work of the agency and the commissions to foster environments of safety free from bullying, and to advocate for people with no protection against intimidating and harassing environments. And Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver Charlotte test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the mayor, to the agency of H.R. p to all the aphra named commissions, as well as to the Denver Public Schools. With that, madam, I move the adoption of this proclamation.
Speaker 3: I was just going to ask you about that. Okay. It's been moved and it has been seconded. Comments from Council Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, this proclamation today. Bullying in general. It's not really about a singular incident where someone makes someone else feel bad that occurs. And we've all committed such acts. But this is about repeated actions that really make someone intimidated with the goal of mistreating them. And I think that the definition is helpful in thinking about where this activity has been occurring in our community. In a 2010 report, it showed that it's not limited to a particular race. In fact, students of all races and backgrounds have been bullied. Denver Public Schools today was in committee and reported that they're proud of the fact that those reported incidents in Denver are lower than the state and national average, but they still impacts the lives of too many of our students. Approximately one in five students in Colorado experiences bullying, and that includes cyber bullying. Idea of sending messages that are harassing or offensive to. Folks posting offensive things about them. And I think that what's really important to understand about this issue is that it's not just about making people feel bad. It has horrific effects on academic performance. Kids miss school because of bullying. They have a lower grade point average is when they're bullied, they may experience physical violence. And the most sobering of all of the statistics, there are more than twice as likely to commit suicide, a student who has been bullied than a student who hasn't. Those are extraordinary impacts that require the attention of this council and of our entire community. In addition, we know that this has been particularly suffered not exclusively, but our job. Students report a much higher rate of harassment and bullying, as many as 70% of them reporting that they have felt unsafe at school. So imagine trying to learn at school why you feel unsafe, maybe because of your actual sexual orientation or maybe because of your perceived sexual orientation. Maybe you're a straight-A student, but you are perceived because you don't follow some gender norm to be different and so therefore you are targeted. I want to end, though, by taking the focus not just on the students that we care about and the impacts to them, but also to the adults. What we know is that bullying isn't limited to youth. It's important with youth because behaviors that are developed and because we have a role to protect them as adults, right. We have a little more influence over them. But even in the reaches of the NFL, we have seen the impacts that bullying can have. And so this is something that whether it's a workplace or a school, we all have an obligation. And so I want to leave folks with two directives. One is don't tolerate it if it's your child. You need to set a line in the sand and make sure they know it's not acceptable. If it's a worker, coworker, or someone in a workplace, you've got to speak up and say something. We need to really speak up and hold bullies accountable. But secondly, if you're someone who's experiencing this, our mayor has participated in a really empowering campaign called It Gets Better. And I think that probably you could interview a few of the council members up here. And it's probably true that the geeks do sometimes inherit the earth or if not the earth, perhaps the city council. It gets better. Hang in there. You are not alone. Reach out and tell someone and you're not alone. So with that, I think I appreciate the time that all of the commissioners have spent. They will get a minute to accept. But we have representatives of all of those commissions here today, including Deborah Wilson, who is both a staff member to the city council and a leader in this community working on this issue. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman CORNISH. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this forward on behalf of the HRC commissions. I do want to ask, just to clarify, has DPS not in fact adopted a formal policy on this issue?
Speaker 2: Their report today, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Yes, currently said council on.
Speaker 2: Their report today was that they had taken numerous efforts. They had put it into their student handbook. They had done a community meeting with parents that was led by the superintendent. So I think we could defer future questions to our next meeting with the school board members. But they reported today in committee numerous steps that they had taken.
Speaker 5: I think that's a good suggestion now that we're trying to get on at least a quarterly basis in meeting with the school board members and the superintendent. I know this is an issue that was brought to my office's attention about a year and a half ago, and we did make some follow up calls to DPS asking that they address this issue and have some very clearly adopted policies so that when certain behaviors were occurring in the schools, they would take swift and immediate action to try to prevent these kinds of things from happening. The other thing I think is really important for parents who are not aware, there is an organization called the Second Wind Fund that does work in all of our public schools, not just in Denver County, but actually throughout the front range. And as of the last conversations I had with them, they have 100% success rate in working with young people who have been identified as somebody that might be thinking about committing suicide. They immediately step in. They provide counseling, whether a student has the ability to pay or not. And they have been successful in preventing any young people from committing suicide. The problem is they don't always get to hear about all those potential cases. So I think continuing to draw attention to this issue. Is absolutely important. And by bringing this forward tonight and continuing to have conversations with Denver public schools about ensuring that they do have clearly adopted policy becomes an important part of this bigger picture conversation. So and I'd like to have my name added to the proclamation. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Certainly. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to thank Councilwoman Kim each for bringing this proclamation forward. We all know the the environment that bullies thrive in. We all know the impact on folks who are bullied. We tend to think of this as just a Denver public schools or a schoolyard fight kind of thing, when in fact this happens all over the place. And that puts us, all of us in a in a very special position, those of those of us who are around kids, who are around young people, but also those of us who work on our everyday lives and our own offices and our own environments. It's incumbent upon us to destroy that culture, right? We have to act in a way that is is dignified and respectful. Even if we get along, even if we don't get along at the end of the day after a hot debate, there should be a handshake. Right. And so that is from primarily I've seen it. That is way more effective. It begins at home and begins in how you deal with family members during a conflict. And I think those are the kind of traits. Those are the kind of activities. Those are the kind of behaviors. We got to we got to be mindful of. Right, because there's little eyes watching us all the time. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank Councilman Kenneth for for bringing this important proclamation forward. I guess the first thing, I just want to make sure my name is added to this list of supporters. You know, I think this is critical and I think it's important and incumbent upon, first of all, us up here as council folks, but all those folks who are listening as well to to not only say that bullying is important, but to make sure that we're form a relationship with some of these kids who are in Denver public schools. And, you know, I know in my district, one of the things that we're trying to do is make sure that we're speaking to every school and getting in contact with some of these community groups who are working with these young folks to make sure that this is not an issue. And, you know, even if you know, if you have kids at home, you know, my son is six and he's in the first grade and he's been having actually a rough time with a couple of kids at school. And it is so sad. I mean, I think Councilman Kenneth articulately just put out all the issues that these kids deal with. But to see how a young kids spirit can be broken just because of constant bullying and people being mean, you know, over and over again. So I just think this is this is critical and it's great that we're doing a proclamation, but we need to take to action. And I hope that this will be on the agenda when we talk to DPS, because they're at the forefront of this issue and they need to be leading the way. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam President, I also wanted to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Kennish, for this important proclamation. I think as you grow up and you talk to other people, you'll find that being bullied has strengthened us. But that doesn't mean that it's a good way to to grow up. I was bullied every day walking to school when I was little. And, you know, I was able to to thrive. But I've also found that some of the adults that demonstrated bullying behavior as young kids have sometimes grown up to be bullies. And so that's not a good world for any of us to grow up in. My hope is that in folks that are listening to this proclamation tonight, that if there are if there are opportunities for children and families to learn better communication for children and families to learn better conflict and problem solving, that would really, really be good. I just want to say that schoolyard bullying is is a very negative thing and it's something that kids learn really early. I think the teachers do their best to try to intervene, but I think that there is a level of training that needs to go with that as well to support our. Teachers and principals in the school. But schoolyard bullying can grow as people mature. And as if schoolyard bullies are allowed to to thrive in that behavior, they can all it can also increase and escalate problems in the in the schoolyard. So I just want to thank you again. And if there are any organizations out there that can that we can put in our newsletter and be able to get out the information about conflict resolution and all of those other kind of things. It's another skill that as growing and thriving kids, it's something that we all should know. And even when kids come home and they say, you know, I'm being mistreated here and there, that even for them to be able to say I'm being bullied and I don't like it, can you help me is a really, really big step . So thank you again, Councilman Kennish and I support your proclamation.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. I'd just like to add a few words to I'm one of those geeks that Councilwoman Kennish referred to, and I. I regale my fellow council people with geekiness every day. There's a lot of literature in social psych that says that behavior can come before attitude. And that's why we should never let anybody mistreat another person or never let anyone mistreat you. Because if they mistreat you, they will begin to dislike you. Because we often, when we make decisions about whether we like somebody or not, we think about how have we treated them. And if we have treated them badly, it must be because I don't like them. And if I'm young and I'm following a crowd and I'm mistreating somebody, I'm not quite sure I will say, Oh, it's because I don't like him or people like him. And it's a phenomenon in our culture that we that behavior can come before attitude. Conversely, if you want somebody like you, ask them to do a favor for you, just a small one. And then they'll ask themselves, Why did I do a favor for them? It must be because I like them. So there is a lot of literature out there that says that allowing the mistreatment can cause the attitude. And so it's really important for us to get a handle on this and make it so that it doesn't happen. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish, for your proclamation. I think we're ready for roll call.
Speaker 0: Can each. Hi. Hi. Lopez Hi. Montero Hi. Nevitt Hi. Ortega I. Sheppard I thought i.
Speaker 1: Herndon, i. Madam President.
Speaker 3: I. Mr. Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes, no, nays 11.
Speaker 3: As the proclamation is adopted. Councilwoman Kennish, is there somebody you'd like to bring up to the podium?
Speaker 2: Yes, I'd like to ask John Kelly. And John, can you please identify your affiliations?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you very much. And I sincerely appreciate your support. Bullying is a problem across the board and affects a lot of communities, which we've seen in the proclamation. A lot of commissions have been behind this unanimously. I want the commissions have already been named, but I have a number of those people here in solidarity with us tonight, and I'd like them to stand and remain standing. The executive director of H.R., C.P. Derek Alberto, the deputy director, Jamie Torres there. They're the current chair of HRC, Maria Lopez, vice chair, Jennifer Williams, Jane Frances Fairuza as well run. I hope I got that right. Curtis Garrett, Deborah Bartlett and Olga Garcia. Dana Right. Couch right in part. Jeffrey Hoyle. Chris Connor. Sean Davis. Don Crosswhite. Eddie Cohen, Michelle Murphy from the Colorado High School Athletic Association. And John Henry, president of the Rocky Mountain Chapter, American Veterans for Equal Rights. This is a sample of the community that you're supporting with this proclamation. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: And then, Madam President, Mary. I'm sorry, Jane Francis wanted to just say a word as well. Yes, Jane, welcome.
Speaker 3: To the podium.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council member Commish. I am very excited to be here. Actually, this is the first time I'm meeting all of you in this kind of event. I will say that last year was very epic for the commissioners. We came together to have a bold statement against bullying. And apparently it has really got to this point that all of us are here looking at to. I am extremely excited. And I want to say thank you to all the commissioners that put their own time to make this a great success. Thank you once again. And I hope you all support us as we go ahead to implement the recommendations that followed.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Francis. Is there anybody else?
Speaker 2: That's all. Thank you, Mike.
Speaker 3: I thank all of you for coming here and taking. It's a pleasure to have had you here. Now we will move on to our second proclamation. And Councilwoman Robb was going to read this proclamation, but she's very much under the weather this evening.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in solidarity to stand against bullying in Denver Public Schools, organizations, and the community at large. A proclamation acknowledging the City's position on taking a stand against bullying.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02032014_14-0023
|
Speaker 5: What I'm trying to find out is if this is the twas the $2 million franchise renewal free fee that we get from Excel and is administered by the Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships. Is that the same fund? That's all I'm trying to find out about.
Speaker 3: For some reason, it's not getting pulled up here for me. Is there somebody here to come talk to us about that? Hi. Kelly Grant here from the Budget Management Office.
Speaker 0: The answer to that question is yes.
Speaker 3: That is the $2 million that we get from the Excel franchise fee.
Speaker 5: Okay. And this is the process of just appropriating that fee to be administered by the Denver Office of Strategic Partnership, which is then used to support many of our nonprofits that are trying to do energy efficiency in their buildings, etc., etc..
Speaker 3: That is correct. It should have been in the long bill, but we.
Speaker 0: Inadvertently left it out. Okay.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Now under bills for final consideration, we had Bill 988 pulled out by Councilwoman Ortega.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making an appropriation from the General Government Special Revenue Fund to the Energy Efficiency Assistance fund.
(GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Approves an annual appropriation for the Energy Efficiency Assistance Fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-24-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02032014_13-1004
|
Speaker 5: We are. This particular ordinance is asking that we allow yet another million dollars to be spent on. It's not I've got not a city money, but we're just allowing that money to be spent on construction so that we're allowing that contract to go up and we're allowing the mortgage to go up by 750,000. Regardless of how you feel about affordable housing, why do you think that the city amount of money which came through federal funds is excessive, which it actually is? It's a lower amount than usual. You still have a lot of government money in this. And from my perspective, I want government money spent extremely frugally. I want the most number of people. Possible to get benefit, and I do not want what I consider to be an extravagant project. So I'll be voting against this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. But Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I mentioned last week that myself and a couple other colleagues had done inquiries to the Denver Housing Authority to get a sense of how the cost per unit in this project actually compared to others that are being built very frugally by the Housing Authority. And I will be sending this to my colleagues with a quick clarification that I sent to the department. But the answer was, when you include the costs of land and you include the design costs and the construction costs for the recent projects in the LA, All My Neighborhood, I think, which had overwhelming support from this council because of the importance of diversifying the neighborhood. The per unit cost there for 93 units was 241,000 a unit. The per unit cost for the 87 unit complex in phase three was 265,000 per unit and the cost that's coming up in phase four will be 255,000. So the costs that are involved in this project are actually very much in line with what is going on in other redevelopment areas because and this is a good thing, the value of land in our city is up, as are the costs of construction. When people are back at work and there's more demand, it affects the prices of both the materials and the workers. So. So what we're seeing in this project is very much in line with other publicly supported projects that are being done by the Housing Authority, one of the most nationally recognized housing authorities we have in the country . So I think that although it's unfortunate and frustrating when you see costs go up, for me personally, these costs are not out of line with those. And I hope that my colleagues once again support this bill tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 1: Yes. Tell someone can you just touch on. I just wanted to mention this, but number one, I'm the chair for the Health Education Services Services Education Services Committee. And I just wanted to let folks know this came through. Our committee passed unanimously because we got a chance to get into the weeds a little bit and understand that this we're not adding any new money to this. The what they're asking to do is to add some money. And we will be, you know, the subordinate loan and we'll also be fully collateralized when this construction project is complete. And so that's just something important to continue to think about. And Councilwoman Kenneth touched on it, but I wanted to reiterated that construction costs are rising all over the city. And anyone who is developing any kind of unit or the project is going to be dipping into their contingency and talking to banks for a little bit more leverage. And so it's important that we get this through council so that we can be in a better position and we can have a better project. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Brooks. Councilwoman Rob.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I didn't address this last week, but and I, too, was concerned with the initial comments I had heard and after after I had missed the first time this came up at council and did some research. But when I really look at this site, I think it is a fantastic location. Is it an expensive site? Yes, it's very close to downtown. It's basically over the highway just at Federal Boulevard into the center of our city. And we are talking about a site where there will be child care and library services available without transportation. Many of us know that transportation you do think transportation costs can greatly reduce your housing costs. And so, to me, these units, when they are rented, will be more affordable than your average affordable unit. It's also a great catalyst for the entire neighborhood. The city is already investing in a great facility there. The library, which to be honest, did have increased costs because of some of the land issues there that this project has also faced, which is probably the reason that there had to be a little more money borrowed from the bank. So I just want to say that I am wholeheartedly behind this in our efforts to develop affordable housing.
Speaker 1: This is the way to do it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Shephard.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. I actually spoke about this at great length last week. And I don't see the need to, you know, rehash all of that. Some of the very same sentiments have been mentioned by my colleagues this evening. But I do just want to highlight with what Councilwoman Robb said about transportation costs. The average family spends 17% of their budget on transportation. It is the second highest expense for most families after a. Mortgage or rent being the highest. So the fact that it is on the busiest bus line in the entire city, that being the West Colfax line, and also just blocks from the new light rail that has just gone into the south in the gulch is makes this exactly an excellent location for connecting folks to job centers such as downtown in the federal center and to the other services that they need. So I am very supportive of this and highly encourage all of my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: I just have to make my disclaimer. Notice that I serve as the board chair of this organization and will be abstaining from the vote.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. Looks like we're ready for the roll call, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 0: But no, her din can eat lemon. Hi. Montero.
Speaker 5: Ortega Abstain.
Speaker 0: LOPEZ Oh, sorry. NEVITT Hi. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. Madam President.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 0: Tonight. One nay, one abstention.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes, one nay, one abstention. The bill passes. Actually, that was on final consideration. Right? All right. All other bills for introduction are ordered, published, and we are ready for the black vote. Councilman Kennish, will you please put the resolutions on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Approve an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). (HEALTH SAFETY EDUCATION AND SERVICES) Approves an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on ???. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01272014_14-0031
|
Speaker 2: And I get to read the next proclamation. Okay. Thank you very much. I am going to read proclamation number 31 in recognition of Matt Wager, Director of Traffic, Engineering Services and Traffic Operations. Whereas Matt Wagers started his career with Denver Public Works in September 1991 as assistant director of traffic operations and has served the Department and Denver's residents diligently for 22 years. And. Whereas, Mr. Wager proved to be a highly talented manager, leader, collaborator, problem solver and team member who advanced to the positions of Director of Traffic Operations in 2006 and Director of Traffic Engineering Services in April 2013. And. Whereas, Matt has been at the forefront of ensuring traffic flows smoothly in Denver and has contributed to the success of many significant events that put Denver in the national and world spotlight, such as the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, the National Basic Basketball Association, All-Star Game, the Democratic National Convention in 2008 and the 2012 presidential debate . And. Whereas, Matt places a high importance on understanding and recognizing the contributions of his employees. Is quick to thank his team for a job well done and whose thoughtful nature ensures decisions are responsibly made. And. Whereas, Matt's legacy will be forever remembered through his numerous professional accomplishments, including overseeing the implementation of a fiber optic cable network for Denver's traffic signal system. The development of three state of the art traffic management centers spearheading a major overhaul in the city's sign and pavement marking maintenance program execution of the Denver Public Works Strategic Transportation Plan, implementation of the 15th Street Bikeway striping of the hundred miles of bike lane in Denver. His work towards balancing all modes of transportation in the city. And. Whereas, Matt, strength, integrity, leadership his unfailing commitment to always cross the crosswalk and superhuman ability to go without a coat on Denver's most frigid days may be it Broncos could use it will be greatly missed by his friends and coworkers. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the council, the city and county of Denver, that Section one. The Council hereby recognizes Matt Wager thanks him for his dedication to the residents of the city and county of Denver and wishes him well in his future. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Matt Wager. And then I call on myself. I move that proclamation 31 be adopted.
Speaker 4: Second.
Speaker 2: It has been seconded and now we are open for comments and I call on myself again. Matt, I. I can hardly believe that I'm the one that's reading the proclamation about your retirement. I've only known you well, just almost.
Speaker 0: Three.
Speaker 2: Years, and I have just had the most wonderful time getting to know you as a colleague. And I know you work on streets, but I think you walk on water and I see all your colleagues, all the usual suspects from public works and transportation. And I know how much they all admire you and respect you and how much they're going to miss you. Your manner with constituents is wonderful. You can call a crowd like I've never seen anybody do, and I've I've watched you to see if I could pick up some hints on that. And then your ability to think up creative traffic solutions is just wonderful. It's going to be terribly missed. I know my district is better off for having you help us, and I am very sad that you're going to leave us, but very happy that you're going to get to retire. And we will miss you. And now I'm going to call on Councilman Nevett.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I was. I was nervous a few minutes ago. Now I'm terrified. I hope there's nobody else important in this retiring fear. Madam President, I think we ought to put a moratorium on that. So I don't know. Again, you know, you've been such a. A great person to be able to work with in public works. And there's not a lot of you know, it's a turn of phrase. People say, oh, your your fingerprints are all over something. Your fingerprints are all over the city. Your fingerprints are literally all over the city. And that's that's pretty cool. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Nevett, Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. You know, I really don't know which profession is more loved by the public lawyers or traffic engineers, but we are unfortunately sending off to stellar employees in those fields. I want to take the privilege to tell an almost personal story. My assistant, Nora Kimball, reminded me of this today as we were thinking about the meeting tonight. It was probably four or five years ago when my office was still on Colfax, and I'll try not to embellish the story. It was Christmas Eve. I had an issue she was working out for a constituent and was on the phone talking to Matt, who was also working on Christmas Eve on a traffic issue. And finally.
Speaker 6: He said, What are you.
Speaker 4: Doing there? You know, they both got to talking. What do you do? And is still in the office on Christmas Eve? And Nora says, well, someone came by and slashed my tires and I'm waiting. I got to figure out how to get my tire change. He was like, Oh, that's too bad. How horrible. And the conversation ended. I'm sure the constituents problem was solved. The next thing Nora knew, there was Matt Wager stopping traffic in Colfax and changing Norris Tire and talk about above and beyond. So that's really great.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's a great story. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Okay, Madam Secretary, I think we're ready for that roll call.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I Brooks Brown. I thought I heard Tin Can Each Layman by Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. Hi, Sheppard. Hi.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announced the.
Speaker 0: Results. 12 days.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes. The proclamation does pass. Now I'm going to. There's another person that wants to speak. I'm going to let you have the last word, Matt. So I'd like to call on Leslie Thomas up to the podium.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. My name is Leslie Thomas, and I'm the city engineer and deputy manager of Public Works. And I have had the privilege of knowing Matt since the very first day. He started in 1991 because I was busy, wrote a mailing STS and I wrote a meld of all of his traffic signal wires and he called me and he said, Hi, I'm Matt and you send me your plans, which I thought I did, but I didn't, and I did it again. And Matt called and said, Hi, I'm Matt, will you send me your plans? Which is what Matt does with every one of us who don't meet his standards.
Speaker 1: Anyway.
Speaker 0: He has made us all much better engineers and public works people just by being Matt. So for those of you who don't know, you all do though. He puts customer service as a priority for himself and his team and has done so many things for the city. He keeps Denver moving and as if you guys have all noted, you see him everywhere you turn, you see him at every stop sign, at every street corner. Our parking signs are legible now thanks to Mac. And he makes those lights turn red, yellow and green, all in the right order for all of us. So thanks so much for Matt and I really has been a privilege to work with him. Thank you very.
Speaker 2: Much, Leslie. Now, Matt, would you like to come to the podium?
Speaker 5: But good evening, Council. Matt Wager, Director of Traffic Engineering Services for another four days. And I just want to say that all of the accomplishments that that Councilwoman Sussman read and Leslie read were done by a team, our traffic engineering team and our public works team. And that's the only way that the city grows and accomplishes anything. And I really feel. City Council is a very important part of that team as well, and I couldn't have had any of those accomplishments without the support of all the council members and our city and our public works team. So I just want to say thank you. In the 22 years I've been here, there was no light rail when I started. There was a very small convention center with with Carrigan Hall sitting beside it. When you came into downtown, you came in over a viaduct. If you were coming from the northwest, there were no bike lanes in the downtown area at all in the central business district. And when I look back, it seemed like it was just a few minutes. But when I think about how things have changed in Denver and how much better our transportation system is today, I'm happy and proud to have had the opportunity to work with you on it, and I think you have a good team taking over for me and they'll continue all of the progress we've made. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Our deepest thanks. It is going to be hard missing all those folks that are retiring. I think it's time for the resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions from.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in recognition of Matt Wager, Director of Traffic Engineering Services and Traffic Operations, upon his retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01272014_13-1004
|
Speaker 6: Now I have asked the Office of Economic Development what is the average cost per residential unit in this particular development? And what I got back was $237,500 taken a loan. That probably doesn't mean a whole lot. I mean, what what's the average cost of anything out there? But that seemed very expensive to me. So I did send a additional email asking, well, as far as said, is the total amount of government money per unit on the cheaper or more expensive side? And the answer I got back, this is certainly a more expensive project. Now, the question is, how expensive is this? I called Paul Jacobs and asked what would be the cost of a single family home? If we're going to compare it to that. Well, the typical single family home is less by $14,000. Then I asked, Well, what would be the typical condo price? Well, the typical condo price is $92,000 less. I called the people at Denver Housing Authority because they are building a a development in my district. And I know it has the same high energy efficiency as this particular unit. So I said, what are your average units cost? And the new units cost $77,000 less for each one of them. So this is a very expensive project. The issue is not to me whether citizens value affordable housing or don't viable for affordable housing. Let's say they do value affordable housing. The question is whether they feel the sky's the limit in cost or whether we should exercise cost control. This was an expensive project when it was first brought to committee. Without this additional million dollars added, I am not willing to vote for something that adds yet another million dollars to the costs. Now the costs are well over $20 million.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Ortega, you just want to make your.
Speaker 7: I just want to indicate that I am on the board of this organization, have been for 30 years and I have two abstained from the vote tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sheppard.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. So I would like to ask Seneca Holmes to come to the front and talk a little bit more in depth about this situation through a conversation I had with him. I'm understanding that our per unit subsidy from Denver is actually a really fair number. I'm also understanding that our collateral is fully insured when the building is constructed. And then finally, I would like you to address Seneca, also something that we spoke about, what the overall goals of the broader Neighborhood Stabilization Program are, which is where the funding comes from for this project.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Seneca Arms with the Office of Economic Development. Welcome. Thank you. Can I can. If I may, I'll take your last question first. The money that went into this project were from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This is a program that came out of the American Reinvestment Recovery Act. The Stimulus Act, it's a temporary program, actually ended in 2013. Unlike other funding sources that were used for housing. And ACP is not just about unit production. It's about neighborhood investment and revitalization. Specifically, this program allows us to assemble and redevelop vacant land for the purposes of stabilizing neighborhoods by encouraging the reuse of blighted property to revitalize the neighborhood. This property was really ideal to meet all of those requirements. We've talked at length in committee about the residential and amenities that will come with the development of this project. There's going to be a grocery store within walking distance. It's proximity to bus, light rail, and there's going to be on site childcare facility. What we haven't really talked about as much is kind of the neighborhood aspect of it. This was a blighted property. There used to be a dry cleaning facility on it. So there is extensive pollution both in the soil and in the water that required remediation. It's a high quality structure, and it's adjacent to the city's almost $40 million investment for the new Corky Gonzales Library. So we've really considered this project together with the library as being a a footprint for greater catalytic investment in the neighborhood. So to just look at this, I think based on the units that are being developed out of it, you miss a lot of the neighborhood revitalization aspects of this program. And I think maybe you can argue that you're looking at it with with too narrow of a lens to speak about the actual investment from OPD. We have $1 million in NSP money and a roughly, you know, $20 million project. And so to give you an idea, I went back the last three years and did an average of our per unit subsidy for projects around the city. So we're talking about on average, $19,525 per unit for this project. We're putting in under $13,000. So in terms of city money, this is a real bargain for us. And Councilman Shepard is quite right. We're collateralized, fully collateralized once the building is complete. So upon completion, we will realize our full collateralization at this point in time. We don't want to do anything that would actually jeopardize the construction of that building.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Did you have another question?
Speaker 0: I don't have any more questions, but maybe some other folks do. But I definitely have comments, so I'll defer to others if they have questions.
Speaker 2: Now you can go ahead and make your comment. I think the others just have comments as well. Really, we can call Seneca back up. I'm sure he wouldn't mind.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I just, you know, want to say that you Urban Land Conservancy bought this land exactly. For this purpose to couple some affordable housing with the opportunity that a brand new state of the art library being created in this corridor would would provide. And currently we are 25,000 short of affordable housing units in the city, and we need a whole lot more and we need a whole lot more serious discussion and action about how we're going to create that. I've been doing a lot of data gathering on conditions in the West Colfax corridor, and I think it speaks to the broader points that you brought up, Seneca, about the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. And I just want to point out, we're talking about a severely blighted corridor where 20% of the families are currently living below the property, the poverty line, 22% of people that live in West Colfax don't have a car. Over 75% of female headed households with children under five are in poverty. Unemployment is over twice what it is citywide. We are dealing with a lot of very severe blight conditions and real challenges about how to lift up an entire corridor and a community. It's also almost 70% Hispanic in this corridor. And I was talking with the wonderful librarian who will be in charge of putting together some of the programing at that library. And I just want to talk about what some of the opportunities are that are going to be there. Number one, there's going to be 40 to 50 computers available and people in that library who are going to be helping residents with basic computer literacy skills. There's going to be programing about how to write resumes and build interview skills. There's going to be opportunities for, you know, to learn to deepen your understanding of the English language. For those that are not native speakers, there's going to be opportunities to help with children's homework. You want to build affordable housing in areas where the services are there to support that. Number one, you've got all those amazing educational opportunities at the library. As I mentioned earlier, we've got the light rail built that will connect job seekers with employment centers such as downtown and also at the federal center. You've got the busiest bus in all of Denver, the West Colfax bus coming down that line for all the people in the quarter that can't afford to own a car. You've got an elementary school right across the street. You've got the Girls Inc, which is the modern incarnation of Girls Club. Also across the street you have the Boys Club two blocks away. There's so many. And then not to mention the fact that this grocery store, the only grocery store in that entire corridor, is literally in the same complex. So the services are there to support this population and to help give them this, you know, the ability to have access to the very programs that will help them become more self-sufficient. And, you know, there will be continually new jobs created in that corridor, too. So this is exactly the place where we want affordable housing and we are getting it for a good, very good price. As Seneca pointed out in I could not support this project more, so thank you for hearing me out on that. And I ask my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard, Councilwoman Carnation. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: If I may, one question for Seneca Homes before my comments. Thank you. Seneca, can you refresh me? This is the second time we've discussed this project at council. We had a very similar debate the first time. What was the amount of the city's investment? The first time we debated the project.
Speaker 1: It's the same amount. It's still $1 million. So we have not added any more money to this contract.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. We're simply changing the order by which we would be reimbursed in the case of of, you know, being being paid back. Is that right?
Speaker 1: That's correct. To compensate for increases in construction costs, of course, we are allowing them a little bit more cushion so that they can proceed with construction. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I think that's really important. Thank you, Seneca, too. To just refresh, folks, that the amount of the city investment in this project is staying exactly the same. We are not increasing our investment at all. And so and I want to just give a one disclaimer before I start, which is that I'm sorry I missed last week . I had a family emergency and I actually had a very similar idea to Councilwoman Foster appears because I called DHS this afternoon to ask them about their average per unit costs. And they said to me, they said, well, we had another inquiry from a colleague and the question was about construction costs, but did you want the full cost, including the value of the land and the soft costs? Because we didn't provide that. So it turns out that perhaps the figures they gave you might not have included the full costs. And so they've offered to do you a fact sheet that they can get to all of us. And they didn't want me to bring any numbers because they were concerned they might have given out, you know, an earlier set of numbers that they didn't know what the purpose was for. So I just wanted to share that information that I'm not ready yet to say that these units are that much more expensive because it appears that the soft costs, which are real soft costs, are the architects designing the building and the insurance. And those are things that are they have to be paid on top of, you know, actually buying bricks and mortar and paying workers to put a building together. So I don't want to re debate all of the same wonderful points that my colleague shared and that, in fact, we debated the first time this project came through council and also the Chestnut project, but just to refresh two important concepts. So if this is too much money for units and are somehow we should do it more cheaply. I want to take that argument to its logical conclusion. How might that occur? How might we create the housing that's needed and spend a lot less? The way I see it, there's only two options. One is build in a really cheap place, put all the housing in the same place. That's really cheap. And again, we have experience with that in Sun Valley and we have experience with that in the Alma. And what we know is that concentrating poverty is not good for communities. And so it's not the right thing to do to just put the housing in the cheapest place and put it only there that mixed income, diverse communities are stronger, both for the residents of the affordable housing as well as for the market rate neighbors. Right. So we're in the process of undoing that everywhere else. I don't think we want to go backwards. Secondly, how else could we make it all cheaper? Well, we could certainly use cheaper materials. We could certainly spend less on the architects and less on the facade and and spend less on all of those things. I think what we know, though, is that, again, we did that. We did that in the fifties and sixties, and we ended up with what people refer to as projects. Right. Something that people can readily identify when they're on the outside of it, something that neighbors don't want to live by. If we want to have housing integrated in a fully diverse community, we have to be able to mix it in ways that are good for neighborhoods. So I'm not here talking to Main about the interests of low income residents, which my colleague Susan Sheppard did very eloquently. I'm here in favor of neighborhoods. High quality construction that blends with the rest of the neighborhood is something we hear from them every day that they want. And mixed income diversity, rather than concentrations of pockets is something else we hear. And this is the way to do it, which is to spread our investments prudently for the same amount that it was just a few months ago throughout various neighborhoods in the city. It doesn't mean we don't have to try to be very frugal with our dollars, but these dollars were intended for this purpose. Thank you very much, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman KALISH. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I know my colleagues made a lot of the same points that a lot of us feel are on this runs council chambers. But I just wanted to just simplify it. Last last meeting, you know, it was stated that this wasn't our role, basically wasn't our role of government. We all know that this is a big issue. You know, those of us who rented very recently. Or are renting. We'll find that it's very hard to find a decent place at an affordable price. And there are a lot of people who do not have that opportunity, not just in Denver, because of the economic impact of the recession, but also because of other floods that happened in our city. You have a lot of people moving into Denver, into the metro area. Right. We cannot afford to have, you know, two or three unit apartments going for 1500 to $2000 a piece. Imagine somebody who is just, you know, making either minimum wage or just how are you making a minimum wage but your average hard working family with two incomes. It's almost impossible to do. And it's not right that they pay more than 30% of their income towards rent. It's just not right. That's not what Denver is supposed to be. You know, we got to be careful in becoming this is delusional of Manhattan in our eyes. Right. We have to make sure that we are a city of neighborhoods where people can live. This is a great project. Yeah, it's pricey. But so is building a hotel downtown and so is building the hotel at DIA. And if this city became, we can be in the business of building hotels. We can be in the business of building for rent apartments at an affordable price housing. After all, this is something that not only us as a city value, but the state values. Look at CML and you look at one of the top priorities is affordable housing all around the state. So there's a great need out there. We're trying to make it and we're not we're not trying to trump private business to be able to do it either. We're just being able to to have it available. So this is one of those great projects. Not all Denver. This is one of our nonprofits. It's one of our nonprofits in our community doing this. And we usually pass the buck on our nonprofits for a lot of the work that we cannot do as government. The least we can do is have their back with some project like this and be able to continue to support our efforts and our mayor's efforts in our own efforts to make sure this is a solid deal for our constituents. Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I was not here last week on a chair of the Health Safety Education Services Committee. Obviously, this came through our committee passed unanimously. I think my colleagues have made excellent points. And, you know, anyone who knows anything about construction that's going on right now knows that if you're a developer, if you're if you're constructing something in the city, you're dipping into your contingency fund because costs are on the rise. And we're just adjusting that for this development. And then secondly, I would just say that we are at a critical time in our city where disparity is existing. Right. And as we look in the news and we read about, you know, my colleague talked about Manhattan and all the issues that they've been dealing with for the last ten years and rising housing costs. And we're experiencing right now my neighborhood, City Park, is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city right now. We have an opportunity and I would say we have a call as a city to to provide housing for all. And so, you know, this is this is an excellent opportunity. And I think all my colleagues have mentioned why, and I hope that everybody up here will be voting in favor of this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Fox, I see your name back up. Did you have a second comment you'd like to make?
Speaker 6: No, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Thoughts? All right. I think those are the comments. We're ready for the roll call.
Speaker 0: But no. Herndon, I can each lemon. Lopez All right. Montero. Nevitt Hi. Ortega Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. Hi, Madam President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results.
|
Bill
|
Approve an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). (HEALTH SAFETY EDUCATION AND SERVICES) Approves an amendment to an existing loan agreement with Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corporation for the acquisition of vacant land, closing costs, consultant fees, appraisal and market study costs, and tap fees associated with property to be developed at 1402 Irving Street in Council District 1 (201208314). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on ???. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-14.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01272014_13-0824
|
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 0: Tonight. One nay, one abstention.
Speaker 2: Ten eyes. The bill is ordered published. Okay, we had another bill, I think, under Bill's for introduction. Yes. Councilwoman Ortega, you called. You wanted 824. Yes.
Speaker 7: This is a bill that deals with what are called hapa funds. And what I'm not sure of is if any of these dollars have been utilized by Del Norte, whose board I serve on, and who has. Several projects that serve people with AIDS. So just to be on the safe side, I'm going to abstain tonight and I'll confirm whether or not there are any of these dollars in the case or if the alerting receives any of these funds before voting on final next week. Okay. Check it out for a vote for the purpose of abstaining.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman Brown, will you please pull out Council Bill 824?
Speaker 5: You bet. Thank you, Madam President. A move the council bill A24 of the audit department.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded and we've heard the comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Ortega abstain.
Speaker 0: Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown II fights i. Herndon. I can eat lemon lopez. All right. Nevitt, I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. One abstention.
Speaker 2: The Lebanese, one abstention. The bill is ordered published. Yes. Or was that a final consideration or a first first reading? First reading. Okay. It's ordered published. Thank you. That, I think, is all of the bills that we have called out.
|
Bill
|
Approves a contract with Colorado Health Network, Inc., doing business as Colorado Aids Project (CAP), to provide housing opportunities and related support services to low income households affected by HIV/AIDS from Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) grant funds in the amount of $1,100,000. (Health, Safety, Education & Services) Approves a contract with Colorado Health Network, Inc., doing business as Colorado Aids Project (CAP) to provide housing opportunities and related support services to low income households affected by HIV/AIDS from HOPWA grant funds in the amount of $1,100,000.00. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on - -13. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-7-13.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01132014_14-0007
|
Speaker 1: It was great to hear all the good news. I wish that all of 2014 will have such exciting and wonderful news as the council members have given us today. Okay, let's go on. Let's go to presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations? And then Madam President, communications man. President We do have one proclamation this evening, and I will ask Councilman Herndon to please read it.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 2014 0007 Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr visit to Denver's Park Hill neighborhood. Whereas, as a nation, we celebrate the American federal holiday marking the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr, which is observed on the third Monday of January each year. It is a day to reflect on one person, one person's pivotal role in leading nonviolent activism for the civil rights movement beginning in the mid 1950s until his death on April 4th, 1968. And. WHEREAS, Martin Luther King Jr continues to be remembered for his work in ending the segregation of African American citizens in the South and the nation, as well as crafting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and also receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 in Oslo, Norway. And. Whereas, Denver's Park Hill neighborhood also fondly remembers that 50 years ago this month, Martin Luther King Jr spent a historic three days visiting with various leaders in Denver and the metro area and delivering a powerful message of delivering powerful messages at two churches in Denver, Macedonia's Baptist Church, in my view, Boulevard Presbyterian Church, where more than 3000 people came to hear him talk of change and the future and its founding to all within its reach, that the problem of racial injustice is a national problem and not a sectional one. And we're. RATH Part of the impetus of Dr. King's visit to Park Hill was the neighborhood's position at the forefront of the national movement to integrate communities from housing to public schools. And. WHEREAS, Park Hill resident Dick Young, the 1964 chairman of the Denver Commission on Human Relations and sponsor of Dr. King's visit and his wife, Laurie, hosted Dr. King and shared his commitment to breaking down racial barriers in our great city and across the nation. And. Whereas, Denver churches and organizations are planning various events to mark the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr. Three day visit to Denver now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one that the Denver City Council joins Park Hill residents as they celebrate this moment of history in Denver and to remember the work of Martin Luther King Jr that created change for all people. Section two that the Denver City Council encourages residents of the city and county of Denver to remember the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr and the words he spoke to spur collaboration among all people stating that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall testing affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to Dick and Laura Young, Rever Victor Lamont Lane, Macedonian Baptist Church and Reverend and Gregory Cummins, Mont View Boulevard Presbyterian Church.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move the proclamation 0007 2014 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It's been moved and multiple seconded comments from council. I'll call on Councilman Herndon first.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Several things I want to put out. First, I want to give a thank you to care to get in the greater park Hill News. I was reading their their January issue when I learned about this video 50 years ago, which spurred the idea of having this proclamation so sincere thanks to them, as well as my other Park Hill Council members that I represent Park Hill as well, Councilmember Sussman and Brooke, we the three of us, sponsored this together, as well as other council members for supporting this. It's rare that you see a proclamation receive so much sponsorship from other council members. So I sincerely thank them for that. And there's really I can't think of a more fitting way as we start to honor the life and legacy of Dr. King, who was taken from us way too soon at the age of 39 with this proclamation. And I just think about the life and legacy that he left. And because he was taken from us, he didn't have the opportunity to travel to as many communities and make the impact that he could have had. But Denver was one of them and Park Hill was one of them. And that is remarkable. And one of the reasons Park Hill was a was a location for him, because during that time, Park Hill was the only neighborhood in Denver, as the article talked about in one of the premieres In The Nation, to allow integration between minorities and whites because other communities white flight was happening as minorities were moving in and whites were leaving. And Park Hill was a neighborhood that fought against that to work integration together. And I think that is something that is remarkable and a testament to the great city and the great community that we have here in Denver. And so I'm honored to represent that. And I also think to when you meet people and you have dialogs, people sometimes ask the question, if there's ever a celebrity alive or dead that you could meet, who would that be? And a lot of times, Dr. King, is that answer. Well, for Dick and Laura Young, they don't have to say that because they had the honor of hosting them in their house. And I think that that is that is remarkable. I'm just in thinking about that. And that is living history. And so to you both, I say thank you for that as remarkable. And I just will I will stop there so that other colleagues can give their comments. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Kathryn Hart. Herndon, for for ma'am. Bringing this to our attention, this is incredible. And now I know why District Gate is so great is because Martin Luther King came through and hung out with some of our constituents. You know, I'll just say this time of year is for me is always a special time when I get a chance to read through Dr. King's Testament of Hope, which is a collection of all of his his essays and all of his speeches. And it's just an incredible opportunity for all of us to begin to consider the challenges. What are the societal challenges that we face, face today? And look look deep inside of ourselves, inside of this nation and in our country and in our city, and how we can be doing things better. And so, you know, I hope we all pause this month and really challenge each of ourselves and us as a body and as a community to say what is the things that we can begin to grow in and we can begin to take risks on. And so, you know, I think about Dr. King, I'm 34. And when he came on the scene, he was about 34, 35. And at that age he raised the social consciousness of the world really did. And so got a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1: Okay, we got to get. Got to get busy.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So thank you, Councilman Herndon. And I hope everybody will approve this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. My husband and I moved to Denver in 1974, so maybe ten years after this. And one of the first places where we sat community was Mount View Boulevard Presbyterian Church, which has been a very important institution in the life in my life, in the life of my family . But, you know, sometimes you just get lucky. It was amazing to stumble into a church that was at the forefront as Parkhill was. There was a whole coalition of churches that led this in Park Hill, and I am so proud, even though I've never lived in Park Hill, but to feel like I'm part of it through this institution and I'm so proud because it was an important part to Denver's future, I think. So while my colleagues certainly none of us will ever forget Martin Luther King, but I. I really wanted to give kudos to Park Hill, the leadership there at the time, and our city, for picking up on that leadership. So, Councilman Herndon, thank you very much for reminding us of our history. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to thank Councilman Herndon and Councilman Brooks and Councilman Susman for your sponsorship sponsorship, bringing this proclamation forward. You know, I, I, too, as a 36 year, I wish there were some people I could have seen in person. I wish there were some speeches. I wish that I could have been at and I wish I was around in the sixties and seventies to be part of that part of those moments. But we shouldn't talk about Dr. King and other people like him who were revolutionaries, who were the real deal, who fought against serious social injustice , and despite being threatened, despite paying the ultimate price, despite losing their jobs, despite being thrown in jail, as Dr. King in one of his speeches that said some of the things that we are going to be up against. It's not civil rights and social justice isn't a thing of the past. This is today. And they fought not just for racial equality, but they fought for economic equality. They fought and they took to the streets. And they were faced with with fire hoses and dogs and and cruelty from a police baton and cruelty from the public because of those revolutionary ideas of equality. And I want to make sure that when we remember people like Dr. King, when we celebrate neighborhoods and people like that, or the allies that made these things possible and filled those marches with shoes and boots on the ground. Right. That we embody that spirit every single day in whatever we do, whether you're a janitor, whether you're somebody that works for Parks and Rec or whether you're a council person or whether you're someone sitting in this very room, you know, supporting a cause that you believe in. We do not talk about this as something of the past. It's a wall alive today. There are a lot of struggles that we're fighting today, and it's that spirit that we have to carry forward. And that's how we honor people like Dr. King and people like folks that, you know, we sang in our own chambers today. And even down downstairs when when our manager of safety was being sworn in, there were so many people in that room. And as people in this room, I know that have struggled for the same cause. So thank you, Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Thank you. Council on Assessment for bringing this proclamation forward. I'm glad to support this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I was alive during the sixties and seventies, sixties and seventies of the 1900s, not the 1800s. And I have to admit that I am very surprised that he was only 39 years old because he was, of course, an old soul. And his impact was so great that we all would have been sure that he must have been with us much longer. And I am honored to be able to do this proclamation day. I thank Councilman Herndon for bringing it to us and thank Park Hill and the folks that we'll hear from soon for being there with him . And thank Martin Luther King for what he did for our country. Madam Secretary, roll call herndon, i. I lost my place. You can eat. I Liman. Hi. Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi. Rob Shepherd. Brooks. High Ground. Hi, Fats. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. 3913 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilman Herndon, who would you like to call up to the podium?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I would like to call up Dick and Laura Young to the podium to accept this proclamation.
Speaker 3: Madam President, my name's Dick Young, and in 1953, I've been appointed the chairman of the Denver Commission on Community Relations, and it was that organization that brought Martin Luther King for that weekend. Obviously, it was the most memorable weekend that our family ever had and ever will have. I was fortunate that I was able to accompany him on most of the schedule. We had arranged it and it turned out extremely well. But I need to know others have expressed growing a lot of details as to what impact he had on the United States and on the world. And they're all true. But I want to spend just a minute thanking some people who are not here, but who had a major role. One is Helen Peterson. She was our executive director of the commission.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 3: Just did an outstanding job. And if all our public servants would be half as good as she was, would be so good. She was just so excellent. Manya Suey.
Speaker 0: Was.
Speaker 3: On our commission. He served as my vice chairman and later he became a director of the commission. And I think there's a building named after him. He did tremendous work here. Bill Roberts, who was a member of the city council for many years and played a major role. Roger Cisneros, who was very active and very much involved. Jim Reynolds, who ended up with the state heading the State Commission on Human Rights. Fred Thomas, another one, a park named after Fred. So really, we're here speaking, I think, on behalf of an awful lot of people who played major roles in making Park Hill and Denver what it is today.
Speaker 1: Well, the reception, of course, was one of the highlights of our life to have him in our home to sign the Time magazine of where he was Man of the Year. And all I did, I think, was clean the house and make sure our four children did not stumble into him. They all claim they sat on his lap, and I'm not sure that's true, but he did inspire us to go on even as Dick was working in fair housing. As you'll remember, the integration of our Denver public schools came later, and I had the opportunity to serve on the on the Community Education.
Speaker 6: Council, which was appointed appointed by the court.
Speaker 1: And all of our children have gotten a wonderful education in our beautiful area of Park Hill. So I thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 4: For for doing this for us.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. It was lovely. Madam Secretary, I think it is time for us to read the resolutions from business, workforce and Sustainability 991 Resolution in the Mayor's Appointment of the Colfax Business Improvement District Board of Directors 994 a resolution approving the Mayor's reappointment, the Denver Convention Center Hotel Authority from Health
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s visit to Denver’s Park Hill Neighborhood.
A proclamation reflecting on the January 1964 visit of Martin Luther King, Jr. to Denver's Park Hill neighborhood.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01132014_13-0589
|
Speaker 1: Announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council. The council bill does pass. Now we are going to the next hearing. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 589 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President. I move the council to 589 be placed upon final consideration and you pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 589 is open. This is a bill for an ordinance amending Section 59 to Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding Subsection C relating to former Chapter 59 controlled districts. May we have the staff report? Ms.. AXELROD Good evening, Tina.
Speaker 6: Axel Ref for Community Planning and Development here to present the staff report and recommendation for Council Bill 589. Just for a point of clarification and correction, the bill will add new subsection C through H to the Denver Revised Municipal Code, Section 59, Dash two oh, which is in the body of your ordinance more clearly with that briefly summarized where we are in the process for this amendment, the purpose and what the amendment does to briefly take you through your review criteria and make our recommendation. This amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code has gone through planning board hearing with a recommendation for approval unanimously. Nine zero. It's been through Lady Liberty and a first reading and is here before you tonight with all the appropriate notifications to registered neighborhood organizations and city council officers. What is this amendment all about? Simply, it's to ensure that all residential zone districts in the city of Denver that were considered to have certain protections under our zoning rules continue and in fact, have those protections. And this really has arisen out of the fact, pretty uniquely that Denver has two zoning codes. It's got former Chapter 59 and it's got Denver zoning code. So what happens is how well they play together when they're next to each other, when you have as shown in this picture, you have land under former Chapter 59 zone. For example, arm you 20 with waivers next to land zoned under the other code, Denver zoning code, perhaps a single unit or two unit sound district. The issue arises when your arm you toe. All you have in front of you is the old code to look at, to understand what you need to do. And it never really speaks to the fact that there are zone districts nearby that should be protected because you, as you see, for example, didn't exist under the old code. You'll never find it there. So our question is circled in the bottom there is how do we get development in that arm? You 22 recognize that there are zone districts nearby that need to be protected. So that's what we're trying to do with this amendment. Before I get into the details, just where does this arise? Is it a problem? Is it citywide? We stumbled upon this in doing plan review for certain projects in Northwest Denver. First, that this this issue arises with mapping all the new code lands next to each other. What this map shows is wherever you see red, the yellow immediately next to it should be protected. And the read is old code zone properties that used to be controlled and we never had an issue when we were just operating under one code. But now that we have two codes, we want to make sure the yellow, which is new code residential zone districts are protected next to the old code red. So you can see it's throughout the city and pockets. And so this is something that we definitely want to address through this amendment because it does raise issues in every council district. So what are the types of protections we're looking to assure continue? Again, these are nothing new. These protections have always existed. We just have to make that link between the two codes. For example, building height, limit symbol controls. We have a maximum 75 feet of height for buildings when they're located 150 feet within a protected district. We have increased setbacks in some instances where there's development in a mixed use zone district next to a residential or single unit or two unit zone. We have lots of limitations in the code, not much, but a good handful on specific uses when those uses are established in close proximity, proximity or next door to a residential zone. Some examples are given on the screen, such as limits on drive thru facilities operating hours into the evening when those facilities are located right next to residential zones. So to the point, this text amendment is to section 59 to 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Your screenshot there shows where and then in the muni code library this section is found. This is not an amendment to either of our two zoning codes. It's to the rules in the one place where we talk about how the two codes should relate to each other. Again, this is adding new subsections. You have your ordinance draft in your package. The next two slides simply summarize and verbatim shows those new subsections. You have review criteria for justifying a change like this that this is found in the City Charter for adoption of new zoning related ordinance that are not part of the zoning code. Your three criteria are you need to find that the change is consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan, that it furthers public health, safety and general welfare and results in uniformity of regulations. Very quickly, as detailed in the staff report, staff has found that the amendment is consistent with the plans. We need to assure that our zoning code remains flexible and accommodates a variety of land uses, also encourages that quality infill development while respecting existing character and intensity of development nearby. This does just continue the status quo of what we all thought we were doing when we kept two zoning codes in place, which is to keep the restrictions on former Chapter 59 lands the same so that this amendment will assure that we don't unintentionally provide some loopholes that we didn't think were there. It does further the public general welfare by assuring the continuation of those protections and will result in uniformity of zone district regulations regardless of what zoning code you're operating under with that CPD staff, which who initiated this amendment recommends approval. And I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Gina. We have two speakers signed up, Joel Noble and Keith Pryor. I'd like to call Joel Noble to this podium.
Speaker 3: Before I begin, I think Keith Pryor meant to sign up for the rezoning on 3099 Arapahoe and got the wrong number.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, does he need to sign up? I can change his card. All right. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Noble. Thank you for letting us know.
Speaker 3: I'm Joel Noble, 2705 Stout Street, president of Curtis Park Neighbors. In your staff report, you have a letter from Curtis Park neighbors supporting this. This is very technical, but it's very important. Right now, we have loopholes, as Tina Axelrod said, that someone who has properties zoned to the old zoning code where the old zoning code says you can't do certain things when you're adjacent to a residential district, can look next door at a residential district. But the residential districts in the new zoning code and see what residential district that one doesn't count. And it could drive drive a truck right through that. So it's interesting that this oversight didn't get noticed for a few years until the upturn in the market and development started. And our our friends in Jefferson Park ran into it with someone who saw that loophole with regard to protected districts. Staff was very quick to say, you know, we have a loophole here. We should fix it to propose that. And I just want to communicate to council what a delight it is to work with staff. Because when I decided to be, you know, a little detail oriented and say, you know, okay, I'm going to look through the code and find some other things that might be there that we should do. At the same time, staff said, Great, you know, rather than saying, no, we're the experts, you know, leave it, leave it to us. They said, That's great. Let's see if we can find even more. And they did. They found the biggest one, which is the residential, all the different ways that residential zoning districts are called out in the old code that, of course, don't refer to the new code. So I felt this has been a little bit of a collaboration and I appreciate the ability to go to planning board meetings and go to hearings and and fix this so it works the way we intended. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Noble. And thank you for your wonderful volunteering effort efforts. That is, it concludes our speakers call on council for questions. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I have a question about how this proposed change would impact the use of regulating plans. And is that a tool that the Zoning and Planning Office is still using of financing the zone changes? To answer your first question, since we didn't have a regulating plan in the old code, this amendment doesn't speak to regulating plans at all , and there's no effect on their use, voluntary or mandatory in the new code. Okay. So is that a tool that the department is using with the new code? Yes. Okay. I just have not seen any come through recently. Do we have any expected to be coming through with. They do not go to city council for final action. It's after zoning entitlement is in place. So it's all administrative when we do use them. Well, I know in some of the zoning that we've had there referred to. Yes. Thank you for. And I continue to be concerned that there really is no tool to ensure that the things that are in the regulating plan, in fact, can be enforced. Because if somebody can get zoning approval. Mm hmm. Contingent on a regulating plan being worked out with the neighborhood, and they turn around and sell the land to somebody else who wasn't party to that agreement. That next person developing that project does not have to adhere to that regulating plan because there's nothing any place that really holds either the city's feet to the fire or the landowners feet to the fire to ensure those things get done. And I think when we talk about loopholes, that's one that I know neighborhoods have expressed as a big concern to us, even though it's not directly on point. I can respond to.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, was there a question in that Councilwoman Ortega's question.
Speaker 6: Was if regulating plans were being utilized, and I was just expressing my concern about them. So.
Speaker 1: All right. Does it sound like there's a question? Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thanks. I have no further questions or comments.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilwoman. Councilman Levitt.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I'm a little reluctant to ask detailed questions because I didn't go to committee when this was presented. But I think I have a question that can be fairly simply answered. So the the the old code made accommodations for protected districts but was blind to the protected districts in the new code. And presumably it goes the other way around that the new code obviously makes accommodations for protected districts but didn't recognize the protect protected districts in the old code. They pretended they didn't exist.
Speaker 6: Actually, we caught it going in that direction.
Speaker 3: Okay. So the new code recognizes the protected district and the old code is just the old code, not protecting, not accommodating the protected districts in the new code. So now that they do lose protections. TRUMP So do they behave?
Speaker 6: There's no trumping because you're either under one code or the other. There's no conflict there. If you're in my diagram, the old code arm 20, you only look at the old code, plus this DMC 59, dash two for your rules.
Speaker 3: Got it. So if you are under the old code and you're now the scales have fallen from your eyes and you're now recognizing the protected district next door, you protect it with the regulations written in the old code, correct? Not the regulations written in the new code. Correct. Got it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Nevett. Councilwoman Robb. Okay. I was wasn't committee in that series of questions just sort of got me. So how does someone figure out there? They're an army of 20. Under the old code. How do they know to look at section 59, dash two?
Speaker 6: Well, that's a bit of a challenge, certainly, but they're still rules. And in the DRC that apply to lands retaining all code that leads you to know what you need to do. When you look on the Sony map and CRM, U20. It tells you, first of all, that the firm form of Chapter 59 code was kind of placed in amber and frozen in time on June 25th, 2010. And those are your rules. That's what it says, first off. And then it's then it goes into more detail. We've just added a few more things they need to look at. So there is you know, we we do rely on staff.
Speaker 1: And our our best.
Speaker 6: Public outreach in terms of our website on what what your zoning and what you need to look at. This amendment has been, you know, quite, quite a bit discussed and heads up across CPD. And I'm working with the zoning administrator to assure that if this gets adopted, it will go into effect this week and we will immediately send out a copy of the ordinance to all reviewers and all CPD. So they have already been prepared. I've met with every single review group who does development review, residential and nonresidential, and so they know this is coming possibly. So we're going to do our best to assure that at the front counter and in development review. At the very least, we we know what the rules are and that we're able to point people, you know, as much ahead of time during concept and pre-op meetings to these provisions.
Speaker 1: Well, the good news is that I and C is aware of it for alerted neighborhoods. And it's important that our officers. Yes. Be aware enough. So if someone comes in initially, we can say you better check it.
Speaker 6: Yes. So that, you know, this obviously is available through the city clerk's office as soon as adopted. But I'm happy to include you on the heads up email all your aides as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. And seeing no other questions, I'm going to close the hearing on Council eight 589 and asked for comments by members of Council Councilwoman Robb. Oh, am I still up? Well, no, for comments. You're calling it first because it's a lady issue. I didn't know if you had a comment or not. It's just this is a needed change. I support it. Okay. Very well done. Councilman Shepherd. A woman Shepherd. Madam President. So, District one was the guinea pig for this. See, in the old code versus the new code and how they interact together. And I do really think CPD for quickly identifying the fact that, you know, this cannot continue and for taking the initiative to bring it forward as a, as a standalone amendment and bring it forward in front of the omnibus text, amend text amendments that we'll be considering here in the next few months. You know, it's been a few months since this happened in my district, but, you know, essentially the conflict was around bulk plans for a developer who wanted to develop under old code but was right next to protected zone districts. I'm not going to go into any more details because I'm not sure if I'm even clear at this point what unfolded there. But quite frankly, it was a big mess and there were appeals to the Board of adjustment. And, you know, there was a lot of anger on the part of the neighborhood for us not having noticed this. There was multiple rounds of mediation with the developer. Of course, the developer didn't want to sort of go with the intent of things. It was a big, hairy mess, quite frankly. And a lot of people became very angry. And, you know, I would really like to avoid all of that going forward. And I'm sure all of you who are struggling with the challenges and opportunities of infill development in your neighborhoods, trust me, you don't want to have to add this one to your plate as well. So I really encourage all of you to support this. It's it's good policy. It makes sense. And thank you, CPD. And so Jefferson Park, I hope someone is watching this and I know I'll see you tomorrow night, but you won. Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Talk about getting down into the weeds. I really appreciate CPD for for locating this and understanding what's going on. You know, I wanted to just give a shout out to my man, John Noble, who is our resident expert in District eight. And thank you for giving your time to work on something like this. We really appreciate it. And we lean on him in District K. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can see why. Okay. I see no other comments. So, Madam Secretary, let's do that roll call thing. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. I thought I heard in Kennett Lemon by Lopez Montero. I.
Speaker 3: Never i.
Speaker 1: Ortega, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The bill does pass. Councilman Herndon, we're going to our next hearing. Will you please put council bill 862 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
Amends Chapter 59-2 to assure continuation of certain building and bulk plane limitations when land subject to Former Chapter 59 zoning is mapped next to lower-density "protected districts" under the Denver Zoning Code. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Amends Chapter 59-2 to assure continuation of certain building and bulk plane limitations when land subject to Former Chapter 59 zoning is mapped next to lower-density "protected districts" under the Denver Zoning Code. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-17-13.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01132014_13-0862
|
Speaker 1: Ortega, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The bill does pass. Councilman Herndon, we're going to our next hearing. Will you please put council bill 862 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 860 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Okay. It has been moved and seconded. I'm going to open the public hearing and we're going to ask for the staff report first.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam President and council. David Gaspar is with Community Planning and Development. With the rezoning of 3099 Arapahoe Street from RMU 38th wavers to GMU three. This is a parcel that's located in Council District eight and is in the Curtis Park neighborhood. It's right adjacent to Curtis Park itself. It is an existing parking lot on the northwest corner of 31st and Arapahoe Streets. And and there's a visual of it right there. It is formerly used for the Epworth Church, which is just adjacent to it. So approximately 12,000 square feet. There's no structures on the on the property. And like I said, it's an existing parking lot. The property owner is a mixed constructors. Representative David was here tonight on behalf of McSwain and the reason takes from our new 30 with waivers. That waivers is for a height limit of 55 feet to the new zoning code, which is the general urban neighborhood context, multi-unit residential with a three storey maximum height. And I think the driving reason that MAXINE is looking for this reason to go to a new zone district that allows a consistent lot with to the historic Curtis Park neighborhood for some single family homes. The existing zoning, besides the AMI 30 adjacent to it, there is JMU through to the north and south, as well as an urban rowhouse to the east. And some more to our new 30 on the block to the west. And the land use includes multi-family and single family residential, the former church that I mentioned in the park. This map here kind of shows where that all lays out from our church. Just to the west there, the villages of Curtis Park, DHEA property is to the north, the single family homes, both to the east and south and west. And the Generator Enterprise Center is also on this block on 30th. Few visuals here at the Villages occurs part to the north, the historic single family homes to the south. There's the park and also some new single family homes to the east, just on the other side of Arapaho. Those are actually built by Mark Steyn just earlier, I believe, in 2013, I believe. I wouldn't be similar to the product that would go on this lot. I do. Here's the Epworth Church to the West. During the process, Planning Board had unanimous approval on November six, 2013, and Faludi in December. And we have a city council here, a public hearing on January 13th. We did receive a letter of support from Curtis Park neighbors supporting this rezoning. We took a look at five different review criteria for a rezoning. We'll focus on the consistency with adopted plans with a comprehensive plan. 2000 Blueprint Denver and the most recently adopted Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan Conference. The plan does have multiple strategies that are consistent with this proposal, including promoting infill development at appropriate locations, development that's consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, investing in neighborhoods and citywide goals, providing a range of housing types and prices. Here's the map and blueprint. Denver. It is urban residential. It is also an area of stability, but very close to an area of change and could be seen as a reinvestment area, acting as a buffer between the historic neighborhood and the kind of changing, mixed use character along Larimer and Lawrence. The Street Classification, Street Classification and Blueprint is residential collector, which again is consistent with this rezoning. Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan speaks very specifically about this stretch between Larimer and Arapaho or Lawrence and Arapaho having a designation of urban residential to reflect the more dense residential land uses that comprise the villages of Curtis Park development. And that three story building height is also a recommendation in the plan. So CBRE does see this rezoning is consistent with those adopted plans with the existing Jami three nearby. There's uniformity this regulations as well as furthering the public health safety and welfare there justifying circumstances in this case is changed or changing conditions that was adopted plans support redevelopment of the site and there's also consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent found in the zoning code. With that, CPD does recommend approval based on the findings of all the review criteria have been being met. Any questions?
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Mr. Gaspar. As we have four people signed up to speak, and I'm going to ask them to come up to the front pew while they are David, where Joel Noble, Sekou and Keith Prior. And I'll call Mr. David. Where to the podium first.
Speaker 3: Thank you, dear member of the Council. Madam President, I'm David, where I reside in Denver. Before you tonight is a public hearing and consideration of council to rezone a vacant parcel at the corner of 31st and Arapaho from AMI 30 with waivers to G three. And this low this parcel location is within Curtis Park neighborhood and is in council. Brooks's district is bound by the Epworth Church. Narrow, single, narrow lot, single family, Curtis Park and the project mixed. Dane is requesting the rezoning of this parcel, in essence to reduce the minimum zone lot size and reduce 34,000 square feet to the allowable 3000 square feet within the GMU. Three Zoning. The reason we're requesting this is to facilitate the construction of four single family detached homes with two car detached garages. The existing ami you 30 zoning will not facilitate nor allow the smaller lot zone lot size predominant within the neighborhood. The rezoning request will also remove the current 55 foot tall height restriction and will establish a new height limit of three stories or 30 feet. Based on our residential context, I bet it's not often you get a developer before council requesting a reduction in height and density. These days the GMC 30 excuse me, the GMC three zoning is the predominant form within the immediate vicinity of the person as found throughout Curtis Park. The Zone District is compatible and consistent with the existing neighborhood forms and context. Some exchange strongly believes this is the best solution for this location and reestablishes the narrow lot residential ideology upon which Curtis Park was founded and extending neighborhoods is about building a better world for us all, our neighbors and our customers. Neighborhood context based development seems to be missing the mark these days. It's being a good steward, listening and understanding and making the best decisions for all those involved. These underlying principles have laid the groundwork for our success. The first project shown was a mixed lane project right across from Curtis Park. We won the 2013 Mayor's Design Award. I Want to Live Here. This evolved into our second project on Curtis Street. We won the 2013 Mayor's Design Award. It just fits in. That same project is up for Best Urban Infill Project, 3000 square feet and under in the Nation, which we will find out in February. All this is done with working with the Curtis Park neighborhood landmark and others. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I strongly and I strongly believe our intentions for this development are aligned and consistent with the neighborhood and its neighbors. Ask your support of the rezoning from AMI 30 to Jim three, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Joel Noble.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Council President Council members. I'm Bill Noble live at 2705 Stout Street and I'm president of Curtis Park Neighbors in August of 2013, Curtis Park Neighbors took a vote to support this rezoning. It was taken at our regularly scheduled board meeting, which is noticed throughout the neighborhood in our Curtis Park Times newsletter, delivered door to door and with open participation solicited. We're fortunate in that we've had two neighborhood plans the 1987 Curtis Park Neighborhood Plan, which was then updated, I believe 2011 with the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. These collaborative documents give space for neighborhoods to talk about their vision and to debate ideas independent of the heat of any particular project. And I would strongly advocate that any neighborhood that doesn't have a neighborhood plan should have one, and CPD should have the resources for doing that. Because later, when there's a development that comes up and it wants to have different zoning than it has today, the the person who owns the property in the neighborhood can look at the vision the community adopted. And city council ratified in the area plan. And it's easy. This is easy. What's being proposed here is exactly what was called for in the area plan, as the staff report said, and we wholeheartedly endorse it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Noble. Sekou.
Speaker 7: German siku bless our action movement. I was a group of poor working poor homeless people reside 2514 Chapel Street right down the street from this project. We stand opposed to the rezoning of this project. As for real simple reason. Listen. At some point, we have to declare ourselves opposed to the illegal ethnic cleansing of this neighborhood. And as we speak, city council, along with neighborhood associations and those who have been participating in this process over the last 25 years are under review by the United Nations Committee on Ethnic Cleansing, who indicted Yugoslavian government. And as we speak, you qualify for nine of the 18 categories and you only require one in order to go to jail or suffer the death penalty. Now, I know you've taken a serious and as you continue going on in Bolton for this, you are indicting yourself in a process that has been declared illegal. Who going to be in these units? Ain't going to be no black people is going to be further white settlers coming into the neighborhood trying to get a real estate deal, because now there is a focus on this area as prime real estate, because there's $4 billion of investments coming in here. And now folks are scurrying like a bunch of bloodsuckers trying to capture this moment. So you asked them about the previous projects when you did those other things, how many black people were in that? And you make it financially responsible and possible for poor people and people who were born and raised in that area.
Speaker 1: To dig in. Please keep your voice down, please.
Speaker 7: And so, yeah, we raise our voice in opposition to this because it is a part of what we do here. And there's no shame here. And the hypocrisy is evident as you proclaim out Nelson Mandela and you will proclaim Martin Luther King and you participated in everything that was counter oppose to everything they represented because you refused to stand up and bring the pressure to stop this menace. But it's okay because I guarantee you to my last breath, I won't be here every day until I die.
Speaker 1: Keith Prior.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Keith Pryor. I reside at 2418 Chamfer Street. Just better disclosure, I'll be one of the ringleaders that'll be listening this project. But I've been a resident in the community for over about 20 years now and have worked with Mr. Kane on their other two projects that have been amazingly successful. And the main reason for their success is because they've listened to the neighbors, they've met with the neighbors, they've redesigned their projects. They've asked us what it is that our community needs and how that product fits in with the existing fabric and and nature of our of our neighborhood. And the zoning that we currently have was a part of the overall enterprise center. And when that got resound because of its main tenant on that block, the Enterprise Center in zone, which was a great incubator for the city but no longer had that way of that zoning no longer fits. And having this down zoned and fitting back in with a 25 foot lots of what has historically been there since the development of this neighborhood as a mixed income, as a mixed use neighborhood with that fabric coming back into light. It's been phenomenal to work with mixed staging because they have really focused on good design and their first two projects were on vacant lots. This one is on another vacant lot. So we're actually re fabricating what, you know, this community once was and that was a great community with a lot of mixed income, different sizes of houses , different price points of houses. And it's just going to be nice to see this lot, which again is a blight of a vacant parking lot become back into life and having some really nice neighbors coming back to the neighborhood and seeing that revitalization. So we look forward to working, you know, further with McSwain on some great other infill projects in the area and getting rid of these vacant lots that have been an issue for the neighborhood and seeing that fabric come back together and as this neighborhood just continues to see itself revitalized. So thank you. And we definitely would like your support on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Pryor. That it finishes our speakers questions from Council Councilman Brooks Yeah.
Speaker 3: Devitt I have a question for you. I had a question for you in committee around this is to folks they don't know this is on the Enterprise Center which has been it was bought by Indigo Development, sold into three parcels. And this parcel is there is a piece of the parking lot. And I talked about, you know, when we begin to divide up parcels in red zone, what kind of you know, what kind of level do we set around parking, right? How do we know we're not taking up parking for the next development or anything like that? So were you able to look into that and do you have an answer? Because I am kind of concerned about it for this, but it's more of a macro question for more developments and infill now.
Speaker 8: It's a good question. I brought up the map here. And as you mentioned, the Enterprise Center and the Upper Epworth Church was one ownership, but it has actually been split. I spoke with the owner of the Epworth Church, and that that split actually occurs in the parking lot that's along the lawns between the former Denver Enterprise Center and the Epworth Church. And so any, you know, re-use of the church would actually have off street parking on that parking lot. Okay. So when they, you know, you know, separate those two parcels, they had a discussion and and were able to split the properties of both would have access to parking in that parking lot along Laurens
Speaker 3: . Okay. So, but on a, on a larger perspective, you know, around the city, how do you how do you go about that? Well.
Speaker 8: You know, parking is tied to the use, whether it's in the new code or the old code. So in Chapter 59, it would depend on what use would go into that that church, which is in the army throw. So it's hard to know until you actually have that use whatever parking requirement is necessary.
Speaker 3: And here's where I feel like we're in a pickle because we don't exactly know the use of the church just yet. And so, yeah, how do you know if it's you know, they're saying it's not going to be residential, but, you know, how do you know? You know, do we set some kind of standards as a city?
Speaker 8: Yeah. I mean, I guess that's a broader policy discussion. But from a from a zoning perspective, you can only look at the actual parking requirements within his own district. So I did look at the the potential uses in AMI 30. And you know, if you look at, you know, an office use, for example square footage, the parking that's associated with the former church would would accommodate that off street. And there's always always the. Beyond street capabilities as well.
Speaker 3: Okay. One more question. Go ahead. So this is kind of a larger question as well. And it has to do with when a developer is going through a rezoning process. They have to first, you know, we have to approve it. And then they go to the building department and submit their application. Mm hmm. Are you all working on dual tracks so that, you know, running these deals on parallel tracks? Once it maybe passes planning board, it passes committee. And it it looks like it's getting that nod for approval that they can submit there to the building department. And just, you know, just so we don't get so many so many issues clogged up in the building department.
Speaker 8: No. And I believe they might have actually done that with this case because they're doing a he's doing a lot of amendment as well to split up these this one one lot into four and then as well go through the typical building permit process. So whenever a rezoning comes in and they're looking to do that, we try to accommodate.
Speaker 3: And I'm more talking about the building department, you know. So let me let me actually ask David just to just ask him about his process. And as we were in this and you've submitted your zoning, were you able to submit into development services and, you know, submitted to the building department as well? Not right off the bat. You know, that's the goal of most developers. We know that this has multiple tiered parallel processes based on the complexity of sites. Some are more complex than others. We felt that this was very straightforward and the developer was willing to, you know, take the risk of plan, review fees and everything else. What our main intention was was to meet with David, have a pre-application meetings, prepare a planning board commission, and then shortly after Planning Board Commission, go on and, you know, attempt to submit the building permits to the city. Building permits take now 60 to 80 working days. And if he'd back that up to where we are tonight, that would have been the absolute trigger to come out of here tonight with the rezoning work with Kimber and the group and development services to record the zone, layout amendments to split the floor, take that information over to the building department process, tie out the addresses issue permits. However, we were only able to submit permits to the city and county of Denver upon first reading of City Council after January 3rd, December 13th, which now is going to push our permit timing back to March. So, you know, now I'm on hold a little further and I would like to, you know, the city to look at kind of these parallel green light, other projects that are very complicated. We definitely understand that. But in other jurisdictions we work in around the front range, we're willing to take the risk. We're willing to invest the time. We're willing to coach and learn and listen. And I think, you know, it's a proactive approach the city can take. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Burks, Councilman Nevett.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. This is a question for Mr. where it's maybe just a little bit off the subject. I was a big admirer of Maxine's work. There was a big mixed team project down in South Denver, and I was under the impression that Mixed had gone under. But here you are. You risen from the dead or were you just I think every developer in the recession went under one way or another. We were able to recapitalize. We shed some assets, we capped some projects and kind of hit the reset button in 2010. So an exchange not gone away. We rejuvenated, along with the rest of the economy and the booming that we see going on. We're much smaller or much a number now, more nimble or smarter than where we were. And when you have, you know, millions of assets that overnight turn into dollars of assets, that creates problems. And that's where a lot of us got caught in it, especially on the residential game. So we're glad to be back in here in front of you tonight. It's great to have you back.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Counts benefit and I see no other questions. So I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for comments from council. Councilman Brooks, do you have a comment?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. This is this site has a lot of history. Obviously, the old Enterprise Center, which many of you know about with the city, and it was bought by Integral Development. And Integral Development does affordable housing within the neighborhood. And they team up a lot with the VHA and do a lot of developments. And so they purchased this whole parcel including and sold it to me, saying a piece of the parcels to me saying sold a piece of the Epworth Church to Saint Charles Town Company. And in the church, which is a historic church there, they're going to be there like. You get office uses and also a restaurant. But this parcel and and then there's this. It's almost looks like a school building where the old enterprise center was. And it's a lot of square footage. And they're looking at a food co-op in that place where you can you can go and buy your groceries. But also, you know, it is an opportunity for folks to to get fresh food in the neighborhood, especially at affordable prices. This is a and you know, I want to credit Antiguo development with just having a vision for this property and mixed in and jumping at the opportunity to continue the the excellence in their design and building some single family homes. It looks like we're going to reuse a space, a space that has has gone dormant for many years. And so we're excited about that. And we're excited that there's someone coming in who is not just gonna throw something together. But as David said, he, he's received many design awards and I didn't even know about the national awards, so congratulations on that. And so, you know, I'll be supporting this, you know, for just the conversation about affordable housing. And in the neighborhood of Curtis Park, Denver Housing Authority is the largest landowner in Curtis Park, and they're doing some of the most creative, affordable components. I mean, it's a really a national motto, as you all know. And so I'm very although things are changing in Curtis Parks and there are you know, there are other houses that are incredibly expensive. They're because of the creativity and creativity of VHA. There are some incredible affordable components. And so I credit film a lot for this, but I'll be voting in favor of this and be excited to see this entire development. All three parcels come together and activate this part of the city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks. Hi, Brown. But I Herndon. I can eat lemon Lopez Montero, Nevitt Ortega. I Rob Shepherd. Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The bill is has passed. Now we come to our last public hearing. And Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 950 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
Changes the zoning classification from R-MU-30 with waivers (former code Residential Mixed Use, higher density) to G-MU-3 (General Urban Context, Multi-Unit, max. 3 stories) for property located at 3099 Arapahoe Street in Council District 8. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Changes the zoning classification from R-MU-30 with waivers (former code Residential Mixed Use, higher density) to G-MU-3 (General Urban Context, Multi-Unit, max. 3 stories) for property located at 3099 Arapahoe Street in Council District 8. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-3-13.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01062014_13-1022
|
Speaker 3: And so that's a great story, Councilman. Thank you very much. I don't see any other announcements, presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations?
Speaker 2: None, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 2: None, Madam President.
Speaker 3: But we do have two proclamations this evening, and I'd like to invite Councilman or see Councilwoman Monteiro to please read Proclamation 1022.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 13 1022 is welcoming the 108th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver. And it reads, We're at the annual National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show. We'll ride into town with the parade on January 9th and will open the annual event for the 108th time on January 11th with various activities happening through January 26th, 2014. And. Whereas, the National Western Stock Show is a storied treasure of Denver's past with a unique and colored history dating all the way back to 1906. And. Whereas, Mayor Robert W Spear declared Wednesday, January 31st, 1906, as Denver Stock Show Day, an official holiday in the city of Denver so everyone could partake in the first ever stock show there was on this day that banks, department stores and other businesses in every corner of Denver shut their doors at noon while streetcars hustled from the 15th Street loop every 3 minutes to the stockyards site. And the Burlington Railroad rushed special cars from the Denver Union Depot for a round trip charge of $0.25. And. Whereas, in addition to exhibiting prized livestock farming technology and other important components of Colorado with rich agricultural traditions, the National Western Stock Show's earlier years also included entertainment shows from popular figures like Buffalo Bill Live boxing events from professional fighters like Jack Dempsey and Jess Willard, and tug of war contest between the Denver and Omaha Police Departments. What if most unusual forms of entertainment occurred between 1913 and 1916 were small titles? These were judged by the same rules as the livestock and the ever so popular naked baby contest. And.
Speaker 2: WHEREAS.
Speaker 6: WHEREAS, the first ever Catch a Calf event was held in 1935, where crowds cheered as young boys ran around the arena and their attempts to wrestle calves down by their collarbones with the lucky winners taking their prize calves home, feeding them, raising them and showing them off at next year's stock show. It wasn't until more than 35 years later when young girls were finally allowed to participate in the 1974 Catch a Cab. I mean, Catch a Calf of it, which is now one of the most famous and treasured events of the show. And. Whereas, today, the primary mission of the National Western Stock Show is to educate urban and suburban citizens about the importance of understanding and preserving Colorado's Western heritage in agriculture, providing city kids a hands on experience with farm animals, and to host one of the world's largest professional rodeo and horse shows. And. WHEREAS, A National Western stock show provides ranchers and farmers an opportunity to share the latest information on livestock, including scientific and genetic research. In addition, more than 350 vendors fill the showgrounds with food and a variety of products for sale. And. WHEREAS, the inaugural National Western Stock Show was January 1906, attracting 15,000 visitors over six days. Now the event attracts more than 600,000 visitor visitors annually from all 50 states and 35 foreign countries and more than 15,000 head of horses, cattle, sheep, swine, llamas, bison and other animals that are represented. And. Whereas, the most recent economic studies suggest that the National Works Western Stock Show contributes approximately 100 million to the Denver economy. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council hereby enthusiastically welcomes the 108th Annual Master, National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver and extends their best wishes for another exciting and successful year and encourages Denver residents to saddle up and enjoy the show. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Paul Andrews, president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Monteiro, for that great history. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Madam President, I move that proclamation 1020 to be adopted. Second.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Monteiro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. It really does seem like just yesterday that I was up here reading a similar proclamation, and I've had the honor of being able to do this through the years. And I want to say that each year it becomes more and more special as National Western Stock Show has worked so hard to be such a notable member of our community. Last year at this time, I was happy to announce a National Western stock show was going to stay in the city and county of Denver, and that was well received news by our community at large. This year I'm happy to announce that there's been so much work done by the National Western Stock Show in preparation for our another 109 years here in in in Denver, Colorado. National Western recently signed a memorandum of understanding and I'll let our CEO Paul Andrews talk about that when he comes up. National Western has always been has also created a citizens advisory committee that's made up of neighbors that are from Global Swanson, Elyria, and they've met twice. And and I'm sure Mr. Andrews will talk about that as well. And so I wanted to wholeheartedly say that it's always been always my honor to be able to read this proclamation . And I'm excited for another exciting National Western Stock Show, and I hope that my.
Speaker 3: Colleagues.
Speaker 6: Will join me in supporting this. Proclamation.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 7: I thank you, Madam President. The National Western does play a huge role in our community, and sometimes I think we forget that. And tonight, I would like to especially thank Paul and Ron for putting together the celebration of life for Clara Davis. That was a special event. You did it very quickly. And Clara Davis loved horses. In fact, she competed at the National Western. And I just want to thank you from all of us, Paul Enron, for putting together that celebration of life of Claire Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to ask that mining be added. And then, Mr. Enders, when you do come up, if you could let us know whether or not you are still looking for people to work this upcoming stock show. I want to wish you the best of luck with your 108th season. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. It has been moved and seconded. I don't see any other comments and I think, Madam Secretary, we are ready for roll call.
Speaker 2: Montero I. Nevitt Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd II. Brooks High brow, high five. Ty Herndon. Can each layman. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Madam President.
Speaker 3: I am Councilman Nevitt.
Speaker 9: My apologies. There you go.
Speaker 3: There you go. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Close of voting, Nance. The result?
Speaker 2: 13.
Speaker 3: Nice, 13 eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilwoman Monteiro, is there somebody you'd like to call up to the podium?
Speaker 6: Absolutely. I see a cowboy hat out there.
Speaker 3: And if you can come on out, it's a cowboy. Do it.
Speaker 6: Yourself. And.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. I am Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western. Thank you so much for the great proclamation since this is our 108th year. How about we just bump up that economic impact to 108 million instead of 100 this year? What do you think would be an area anyway? A lot of activity, as has been noted here tonight over the course of the last year. And much more activity will occur in the coming ten or so months. As was alluded to, we have signed a memo you with some very significant partners that share our vision. The first and most significant is the city and county of Denver through the DCC. They are an IMO you partner along with Colorado State University, the Museum of Nature and Science and History, Colorado. So all of us are focused on the vision of how to create a complex ride around I-70 and right. And that will forever live to both be an educational beacon for agriculture as well as a celebration of our Western heritage. So we're focused on that. And we have engaged a citizen advisory committee on that. We've met a few times now and are continuing monthly meetings that is being chaired by Maria Garcia Berry and Terrence Carroll. I think a couple who you all know very well on the hiring side, I'm happy to announce we hired our 1,000th person just about two days ago. So the call went out from all of you about three weeks ago to encourage constituents in your neighborhoods to apply for jobs. We now are fully staffed and ready to take on the more than 600,000 individuals. And in reference to Claire Davis, we also have created an event in her memory that will be the 2014 Clare Davis Memorial Gamblers Choice Horse Show. Clare was a individual that would have competed in that event over time. She would not have been competing in it this year, but her class would have risen up to that. So that's a night we will celebrate her. We have the event center will be donned with a yellow ribbon in her memory and that is a night to celebrate her life. We also have many new things like the National Western Nursery this year where you can come see pigs and sheep and goats and alpaca and baby chicks with their moms. It's the first time in the event center, so that'll be something that's very exciting. Evening a dancing horses will be a performance that Silvia's or beanie from Cavalier the old show from Cirque du Soleil she'll be voice commanding her Arabian stallions and as you all know the rodeos, 28 of them are second to none. We have the. Last rodeos in the world in Denver, Colorado. The energy in our building. The Denver Coliseum is second to none. And I say that with all sincerity. Denver should be very, very proud of the energy that rodeo brings to this community. And finally, we'll announce tomorrow that we have a partner that has bought the grounds admission for everyone on January 21st. Tuesday it will be Friday at the National Western Stock Show, the first of its kind provided by MetroPCS. So everyone will be allowed grounds admission that day for free. And that announcement will go out in a press release tomorrow. You all get it today? Again, thank you very much for having me. If there is anything I didn't cover. Madam Chair, please open the floodgates.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews. And thank you for all you do for our city. It's wonderful to have you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation welcoming the 108th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver. Welcoming the 108th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01062014_13-0757
|
Speaker 3: We reconvened, we have one more required public hearing. This evening's speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only, just let us know. Come to the podium and note that you're available for questions. Each speaker will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor on the wall. When the yellow light comes on, you will have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. And when the red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments. Audience Members Please remember that council members use electronic devices of various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings. Be assured, however, that by mutual agreement and common practice of this Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during public hearings. We I'm going to just open the public hearing for 757. We don't need we do not need a motion on the floor as the motion has already been opened, and we just postponed it until this very evening. So I'm just going to ask Mr. Mesereau to come up and give us the staff report.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Teresa Lucero, with community planning and Development. This is a zone map amendment for property located at approximately 8822 Beekman Place. The proposal is to rezone the property from master plan context residential mixed use with a five storey height limit to master plan context mixed use with a five storey height limit. The property is located in northeast Denver in Council District 11, in the Stapleton statistical neighborhood. It is generally northeast of the Northfield Shopping District, north of I-70, south of Rocky Mountain Arsenal and west of Central Park Boulevard. The property itself is about four acres. It is owned by Forest City Stapleton, and they are requesting the rezoning to enable some commercial mixed use land uses. So the master plan context was specifically written for the Stapleton neighborhood, and it is for redeveloping areas, redeveloping in phases over a longer period of time and contains a variety of residential densities and mixed use centers embedded in areas larger town centers, higher density office and industrial and employment centers. So again, the proposal is for master plan context mixed use five storey height limit. The current zoning is master plan context. Residential mixed use. The land use is vacant. The North Stapleton GDP, which is our most current planning document for this property, does designate the area residential mixed use. The surrounding building form and scale is between, well, actually one in three stories. We've got a new apartment building going in across the street from this property that is a three story apartment building. You'll see as soon as we get to the photos. This is the context. It looks very vacant currently, but you'll see the lines that are on it for residential development. To the north west of the site, you see the Northfield commercial area and noble Sysco Foods off to the east of the property. We've kind of already been through what the surrounding uses are, but the surrounding zoning is Emmerich's five and I am x five, which is an industrial mixed use district in the Master Plan context and Annex five and for the Northfield Shopping Center, the old Chapter 59 commercial mixed use zone district. Again, the site is vacant. The we already talked about the noble Cisco and the Northfield. So I'm not going to get into that. But here are the photos of the surrounding development, brand new housing going in to the north and west, Northfield Shopping Center to the south. Noble Cisco is the top picture on the left. The site itself is the vacant property in the center on the I'm sorry, on the right where utilities are being installed. And then the bottom right is the three story apartment complex under construction directly across the street from the site. So this application was that planning board on October 16th, they recommended unanimously approval. Excuse me. I need a drink.
Speaker 3: Of.
Speaker 6: Water. Something about this room dries my throat out. Ludie, on October 29th and of course, here, January 6th for this public hearing, the RINO's notified our Northern Airport corridor. Associates. Associates. Stapleton Master Community Association. Stapleton United Neighbors and I and see of course notification signs were posted on the property 21 days in advance of this hearing. And to date, we have no public comments. You know, the review criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The pertinent plans are current plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Stapleton Redevelopment Plan and the North Stapleton General Development Plan. I won't get into the details of consistency with the plans. It's a detailed in your staff report. Blueprint Denver. This is single family residential. You see the old open space through the map. That was the original layout in Blueprint Denver. Blueprint Denver talks about a city containing neighborhoods that offer a variety of housing types, complementary land use types. All of Stapleton on the Blueprint Denver map is an area of change. There are no street classifications for any streets but Northfield Boulevard on the Blueprint Denver map, and it is an undesignated local street. Now that's superseded by the GDP, and we'll talk about that in a second. The Stapleton Development Plan, this area is designated part of District six, which designates the area a mixed residential and employment zone. Talks about a town center, a walkable scale, and significant outdoor amenities that under the Stapleton, the land use concept for the North Stapleton GDP. This is a GDP that was completed in 2012. The land use concept is residential mixed use, so could be residential could be mixed use. The street classifications for Northfield Boulevard were updated to to what it is a major arterial and willow and Xenia streets which are the two streets on either side of our property were designated collector streets. That's why staff thinks this state thinks this is a prime location for commercial mixed use rather than residential. So CBD finds that the rezoning is consistent with current Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Stapleton Development Plan and the North Stapleton GDP. That there is no effect on uniformity of district regulations. And by implementing our plans in this manner, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstances are changing conditions. This is a desire to continue the redevelopment of our former airport. So this is a very appropriate justifying circumstance for this rezoning. And we already talked a little bit about neighborhood context to the master plan context actually being written for the Stapleton redevelopment, the zoned district purpose in intent, the mixed use zone district with this being on collector streets and arterial streets, is the more appropriate zoned district for commercial uses that will extend from the existing commercial uses to the West. So staff believes this proposal is consistent with the neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent. We therefore recommend approval.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Ms.. Lucero. We have three speakers signed up. I'd like to call on the first one. Mr. BABCOCK.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Madam President, members of Council, good evening and happy New Year. My name is Bob Gorelick. My address is 609 South Gaillard Street in Denver here this evening in support of Council Bill 757, representing fourth City Stapleton, the applicant and the property owner. When you first take a look at the zoning and you think we're coming from an m master plan district, our residential mixed use five stories two an m Master plan district mix mixed use five stories. You think, why are we doing this? Why is it really worth going through this entire effort? And the reason is quite simple. We've gone through two general development plans on the site over the last six years. This has always been a commercial corner. It's across the street from the largest. Commercial center we have in that part of town, Northfield. We're right across the street from Macy's. Some of our users that are looking at this corner are for convenience stores with filling stations. The difference in the bricks versus the zoning is not in use. They both allow the convenience store, but only the Amex allows the building form for a drive thru and with a filling station we have to have a drive thru. So that's the purpose of this entire rezoning. We need a filling station. There are none in this part of town. For our future residents, they have to drive all the way out to Quebec Street. And for people living south of this area, they have to go to Quebec Street to fill up their car. So we'll get this on board. And then in another month and a half to two months, you're going to be considering a rezoning for almost 800 residential units. That'll come on after this commercial corners develop. So that's the intent and that's the purpose of this rezoning. If I can answer any questions, let me know.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Garlic. Jeffrey Washington. If it were.
Speaker 5: Just the. Jeffrey Washington. I live in Denver. I, I didn't know every detail before I signed my car to speaking against this. And basically my reason for wanting to speak out against this was because I seen that they would change the residential use to commercial use. And being with the rise in housing costs we have now, I don't think is wise to change residential uses to commercial uses. But after I spoke to Mr. Goldie, door recessed. I can see how this makes sense to go ahead and approve this. But I just want to keep in council's mind that housing is short and Denver and you know, we just need to be mindful of that when we're doing these zoning changes. We need more housing and the way to do that is just to build more housing to bring the overall market rate of housing down in Denver. But again, after I spoke to Mr. Gold, look, I can see why this makes sense and the need for gas stations, though.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Washington Sekou.
Speaker 7: When I was Chairman Saker representing the Black Star Action Movement for Self Defense Advocacy Group for poor, working, poor and homeless people. Initially I had talked to Mr. Gillick and listening to the staff report. Initially I was for this thing, but as I was sitting there, there was a pain of conscience that says There's something wrong with this thing. See because. In that Northfield area where the shovels is going to go up and where this gas station or whatever that's going to be proposed because not really locked down is what's going to go up there. But when you open up the eyes and the window for this rezoning thing, it's pretty much whatever we decide happen can happen. And so in the process of building that north built, when you look at the commercial properties up in there, there is not.
Speaker 5: One black outlet, not one.
Speaker 7: And here we go with the 7-Eleven.
Speaker 9: And we know that's not no black ownership of that.
Speaker 7: So what are we really talking about here when we open up here? All right. Because now it becomes very sly, slick and wicked because it's a continuation of the ethnic cleansing of that area.
Speaker 5: And it's why only.
Speaker 0: Is good enough for us to shop there, but it's not good enough for us to live there.
Speaker 7: And so you have a responsibility here, regardless of your good intentions, to start building housing for local.
Speaker 5: People who can afford that to live there so they can shop there. And until we get that, what are we going to go on and make this a priority for the rich and nothing for the poor? And so I'm calling on the people who are allies of the poor I'm talking to. I'm talking.
Speaker 7: Susan. I'm talking to my friend Debra. And really, I really need your help on real deep calcium clinics. We got to step up the pressure and we got to use these zoning issues to put poor people on the agenda and speak to these developers about what is expected of the city. Otherwise, it's going to end up quite only are you going to push out the pool and are you going to increase the police budget to arrest.
Speaker 5: And make them move and make them feel uncomfortable here? And I don't see that commitment. I need the same urgency that you put on marijuana laws to apply to poor people. And it needs to be done now, because I'm telling you, there is a rumbling unmet need and the people who have nothing to lose are not satisfied . And we're not satisfied with the leadership that will be presented here.
Speaker 7: Because.
Speaker 3: Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 3: Your time is up.
Speaker 0: Speaking on our.
Speaker 3: Behalf, Mr. Speaker, for your time. Thank you. Okay. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I'm not sure who is the appropriate person to answer this question, but I'd like to know how many acres are available for redevelopment out at Stapleton that has not already seen a GDP done on it.
Speaker 4: To. Our number crunchers.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Some of that.
Speaker 5: But.
Speaker 6: It's all got GDP except the area north of 56th Avenue, which is about a quarter of a section. You know, it's actually let me get down to the next. Well, I hit that slice.
Speaker 8: Any idea roughly how many acres we're talking about in that area?
Speaker 6: 225. Okay, hide this slide. I'll show you.
Speaker 8: So one of the things that I think might be important here is to ask I don't know if it's for city or who, but I understand the Stapleton Redevelopment Corporation is disbanding and maybe have an update be brought to committee in terms of what's the you know, what's the role of the community and how these go through the community process? I don't know. Councilman Herndon, you might have some insights that you can share with us on this.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Actually, I was going to leave this for the comment section, but I was going to invite my colleagues to come to LUDI next Tuesday. The 14th for City will actually be doing a presentation on the redevelopment of Stapleton and answer any colleagues questions they have about that. So this was very timely and I was going to announce that during the comment section.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Shephard.
Speaker 2: Mr. Gorelick. I just wanted to clarify something, because I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Did you say that you under the current zoning, you can build a filling station, but that it wouldn't be a drive through?
Speaker 5: You know, it's true. It's kind of an interesting aspect of the zoning code. We can do a convenience store with a filling station under the current zoning, but all uses in the arcs have to be enclosed. So yeah, we could do a filling station, but it has to be enclosed. It's a break in the zoning code so we can.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that doesn't even make sense to me. So could you.
Speaker 3: Explain that a little bit?
Speaker 2: Because how else would you get into the filling station?
Speaker 6: Well, that's why we're rezoning the property. There is a land use limitation. I don't know why I'm losing my voice, but there is a land use limitation in the oryx that requires enclosure of a drive thru uses.
Speaker 1: Like the enclosure for enclosure.
Speaker 2: That's crazy. Was this something that was not caught during the zoning code revision?
Speaker 6: I think this was something that was deliberately written into the zoning code so that these types of uses would go into mixed use commercial rather than residential mixed use areas.
Speaker 2: I see. That was a way.
Speaker 6: Of my understanding of it, my interpretation.
Speaker 2: Okay. Very interesting. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I was going to get at the same thing. And it's it's sort of appropriate to follow Councilwoman Shepherd, because that was a good question. Mr. Garlic, I was just going to ask you, the way it was said, made it sound like we didn't conceive of the zone districts very well. But really what I interpret you're saying is we didn't map this corner correctly to allow that.
Speaker 5: That's correct. The zoning just adjacent to this to the west is m m x and this site probably should have been m m x as opposed to our. It was never the intent to have this as a residential corner. It's across from Northfield. So no, you're correct. It should have been mapped initially.
Speaker 2: And then I had another question, since we're changing this from the remarks, and yet you said, which is really a come in zoning, that you're going to come back here and rezone for 800 residential. Did we also mis map an area and make it mixed and not residential or.
Speaker 5: No, no. This is the zoning we'll be bringing in in the next 6 to 8 weeks is referred to as filing 45. It's in response to our newest general development plan, our new GDP. It's difficult to anticipate what all these uses are going to be years out. When we did the initial GDP, so now we've revised it and we need to bring our zoning into compliance with the general development plan. So that's the next one you'll see. If I said 800 units, it's 789.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm glad you're precise there. If I could just come quickly. Council President In addition to having the Stapleton plan there, obviously given our omnibus zoning amendment, that's sort of coming through at the same time, we're going to plan some time to discuss GDP sort of in a work session at.
Speaker 3: Ludy as well. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. That's good information. I don't see any other questions. So I am going to close a public hearing for Council Bill 757 and ask for comments by members of Council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President, and I certainly would hope I can get my colleagues supporting this endeavor. It is amazing to think that DIA is almost 20 years old, as they will be next year, and to think we have not. Had an airport in Stapleton for that long. The redevelopment of Stapleton is over halfway complete. The tiff ends in 2025. And it is just remarkable to think that so much has been accomplished that I thought it was wise to have four city come in and brief council on what has happened there. I certainly want to encourage my colleagues to come and ask a lot of questions and come out for a drive to it is amazing. I think what we have done with a former airport and this is a this is certainly known worldwide for city has been approached by several entities that want to know exactly how they have done this and made this a success. Certainly have been road bumps along the way, but I definitely think overall they have they have done good work and there's still more good work to be done. I would also like to encourage people that spoke tonight, if you're unfamiliar with Cleats, which is a bar in Northfield, Stapleton, owned by Lauren Belt, an African-American couple, as well as Tipsy Cupcakes, another minority owned business in Northfield, Stapleton. That's just the two of the few that I'm aware of. So wanted to make sure that people were aware where we have great large chains such as Macy's and Northfield, but we also have local minority owned business there as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And seeing no other comments, I think we're ready for roll call.
Speaker 2: Herndon I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Montero Nevitt, I. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd. Brooks High ground fights. Hi, Senate President.
Speaker 3: I am Councilwoman Ortega. Get your vote out there. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. We close the voting and not the results.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes Counts Bill 757 passes. I have a couple of announcements. On Monday, January 13th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 975, which renews for ten years a contract with Comcast for a non-exclusive cable television franchise agreement. And we will have the one hour courtesy public hearing on the same night regarding the 64 subpoena station area plan in Councilman Herndon's district. And seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 9: Your first quarter.
Speaker 1: Denver 82.
Speaker 5: New.
Speaker 2: York City. Your source? Denver eight is about your city.
Speaker 3: Tell us what you think.
Speaker 1: I enjoy watching your programs because they explain everything thoroughly. The show really keeps me.
Speaker 9: Current with the city government.
Speaker 6: I think the Denver News showed.
Speaker 9: That you have each weekend.
Speaker 0: As an informative and concise time.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 1: Talk back to your television. Call or email us for your direct connection to Denver TV.
|
Bill
|
Approves changes to the zoning classification from M-RX-5 to M-MX-5 for property located at 8822 Beekman Place (aka 4936 Verbena Street) in Council District 11. (Land Use, Transportation & Infrastructure) Approves changes to the zoning classification from M-RX-5 to M-MX-5 of property located at 8822 Beekman Place (aka 4936 Verbena Street) in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-29-13.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08012022_22-0832
|
Speaker 2: A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 39, 23, 39, 29 and 20 and West 28th Avenue and 3838. North Perry Street in Berkeley. 22 821 A Bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 479 North Knox Court in Burnham. 22 822 A Bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 715 North Adams Street in Congress Park. 22 841 A bill for an ordinance amending Article one of Chapter 30 of the Revised Municipal Code Altering City Council. Procedures for designating structures and Districts for preservation and for Safety, Housing, Education and Homelessness. 22 834 A bill for an ordinance amending Articles three and six of Chapter 45 the Denver Revised Municipal Code to address catalytic converter thefts within the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilmembers. This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilmember Hines, will you be making the motions for us this evening?
Speaker 0: Yes, Council.
Speaker 1: President. Right now, do a recap under resolutions. No items have been called out under bills for introduction. Council members say the book is called Out Council Bill 832 for a vote under bills for Final Consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 22, dash 032 on the floor for publication.
Speaker 0: I move that council bill 22 does 083 to be ordered published.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Council members say the Barker Thank you.
Speaker 4: I'd like to go on record.
Speaker 1: Voting no.
Speaker 2: For this. I don't think that I.
Speaker 1: Was provided evidence that compelled me to believe that we were not subsidizing another level of government's responsibilities. And so just want.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making an appropriation in and a rescission from General Fund Contingency and making an appropriation in the General Fund budget for the City Attorney’s Office.
Rescinds $154,000 from General Fund Contingency and makes a supplemental appropriation in the City Attorney’s Office General Fund appropriation to support limited staff positions serving as Special Assistant United States Attorneys, managed through a memorandum of understanding with the United States Attorney’s Office and focusing on prosecuting violations of illegal possession of a firearm under United States law. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-19-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08012022_22-0582
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah. And I think we'll pass it to our partners. We do want to let people know that there are resources online to help you plan your trip if you have security concerns on the light rail. These are all things that are super important for you to know. You're not alone in riding the bus. The system is here for you. And green Latinos and the RTD Riders Alliance are two.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have Adrienne Razavi on Zoom.
Speaker 4: Hello. Yes. I'm really proud to accept this proclamation as the organizing manager of Denver Streets Partnership. We are so excited that this is happening for Denver as the organization that cares so much about how people get around in this city. And we're excited for what it brings for the successes of not only increased ridership, but just getting people to see how valuable our transit system is and how amazing it can be, especially if we are able to make this a longer term system. But for now, we're just really excited to celebrate the month. So thank you very much for your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you all. We have three public hearings tonight. For those participating in person when called upon, please come to the podium on the presentation monitor on the wall you'll see your time counting down for those participating virtually when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you're promoted, your screen will ask permission to allow us to promote you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen will flash and say, reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You'll be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one and your microphone you'll see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you've finished speaking, you will change back to participant participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin the remarks by telling Council their name and city of residence, and if you feel comfortable doing so, your home address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you'll be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct your comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0582 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 0: Yes. Does president I move that accountable? 22 058 to be placed on upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. There are required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-058 to is open. May we have the staff report.
Speaker 9: Hello. My name is Edson, M.A., I am with CPD today. And then we have 4722 and three 4758. North Clay Street is five properties that are adjacent to each other. The current zoning is a single unit zone district that is applying for a single unit zoning district with an accessory dwelling unit. The five properties are located in Council District Quantum and in both district, and it is in the Sunnyside neighborhood. So the site itself is just south of Interstate 70 and to the east of Federal Boulevard. All of the properties are 6250 square feet. And like I'd mentioned, they're all looking to build in excess for drilling in the current zoning of the five properties is us, you see, which is a urban single unit with a minimum lot type of 5500 square feet. And as you can see, predominantly it is us, you see. But there is some us you see one which is allows for the excess are drawn in close proximity directly to the east. Predominately in this area, we see a lot of one storey single family homes, as you can see here on the pictures on the left. Both the top and the bottom are some of the subject properties that are one story. And then across the street and to the north that you see as well as some of the single storey structures here. So so far it's gone before our planning board back in May 2nd, and it was approved unanimously and it is before it tonight. And there has there has been no public comments on the specific application. And so there are five review criteria that we analyze when we're looking at a specific map amendment. The first one is can see what the adaptive plans are. We're looking at Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver Land Use and Transportation Plan and 2019 and the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan 1992. So there are several strategies outlined in the staff report and I'll just go over some some of the here for companies to plan under the equitable equitable and inclusive go to strategy and create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families as well as a strong and authentic neighborhood. Go one strategy b ensure neighborhoods offer a mix of housing types and services for a diverse population, as well as the environmental resilient goal eight Strategy. A Promotion for development where infrastructure and services already in place. When we jump into a blueprint, the five subject properties are classified as urban. When we look at the future place type within Blueprint, it is classified as residential law, which is predominant single and uses in accessory dominance. Our appropriate place to be is a local street, which is primary primarily categorized by residential uses. And then the properties are classified as all other areas of the city within the growth strategy map. This is where we anticipate 10% of new employment and 20% of new house housing. As well as when we look at Blueprint, we do have a housing policy specifically in the land use and bill form section that talks about diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all of residential areas. And then when we look at Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan, under the land use zoning section, there is a goal to maintain and stabilize the residential character of Sunnyside, as well as in the housing section. It does talk about stabilizing and upgrade the housing stock by encouraging long term residency and increase homeownership. For review criteria two, three and five. It is specified within the staff report and for the fourth criteria justified circumstance and it is consistent there with a city adapted plan as specified within. Therefore CPD recommends approval based on all the findings of the request. Your appointment to staff is available for questions as well as the applicant. Michael Martinez is also on call for any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have no public speakers signed up to speak on this item this evening. Any questions from members of Council on Council Bill 20 20582c none. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 20582 Council Member Sandoval. Any comments?
Speaker 2: I vote. I just.
Speaker 4: Want to thank.
Speaker 2: The applicants for working.
Speaker 4: Together.
Speaker 1: Five neighbors came.
Speaker 4: Together to work on this rezoning application so that it wasn't just one off rezonings in the neighborhood. And this neighborhood is currently going in the neighborhood planning initiative, which we're talking about rezoning to allow accessory dwelling units. So I like the proactive nature and I believe it meets all the criteria and ask my colleagues to support it
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4722, 4730, 4740, 4750, and 4758 North Clay Street in Sunnyside.
Approves a map amendment to rezone multiple properties from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4722-4758 North Clay Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08012022_22-0583
|
Speaker 4: Together to work on this rezoning application so that it wasn't just one off rezonings in the neighborhood. And this neighborhood is currently going in the neighborhood planning initiative, which we're talking about rezoning to allow accessory dwelling units. So I like the proactive nature and I believe it meets all the criteria and ask my colleagues to support it . Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Another in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council 20 20582.
Speaker 2: Kenny.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I will take it. I. Sawyer, I. I'm black. I see tobacco. Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. Herndon. Hines, Cashman. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: You have a nice.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes council with 20 2058 who has passed? Councilmember Hines, will you please put council bill 20 220583 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 0: Yes. Council President I moved the Council bill 20 20583 be placed upon final consideration and to pass.
Speaker 1: Has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2053 is open. May we have staff report?
Speaker 9: However, once again, my name is Timmy Vinous with CPD. Before you today we have four, three, three, four North Lincoln Street, which is a single unit zone district applying for a single, single family zoning district with accessory accessory dwelling. So this one specifically is located in cancer district. Can you see the map as described in the Globe Hill neighborhood? So the site itself is kind of has I-70 to the north as well as Interstate 25 to the west. The property itself is 6250 square feet, and the request is to allow for an accessory dwelling. The current zoning here is SUV, which is the urban edge single unit view with the minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. We do have some idea, which is a light industrial zone district with a year or two, which is a billboard overlay in close proximity to the south as well as north to the south and east and west. But predominance though area is single unit. The site itself is it's a single unit residential home, as you can see in the top left corner. It's a one story structure. And as you can see here and in the neighborhood, we put down this one story, single family house. So this has gone before our planning board in May 2nd and it was approved unanimously and is before you tonight with no comments. There are five specific criteria that we analyze when we're looking at a specific map amendment. The first one is consistency with adopted plans. So we're looking at three specific plans, which is Compass and Plan 2040, Blueprint, Denver Land Use and Transportation Plan and 2019 and the Local Neighborhood Plan of 2016. We think comprehensive plan. We're looking at specific strategies that the staff report calls up. But I'm going to just focus on a few here. The first one is equitable, affordable and inclusive. Go to strategy, create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. Stronger an authentic neighborhood go one and strategy B is ensure neighborhoods offer a mix of housing types and services for all diverse populations, as well as the environment to result in a strategy. Remote info development, infrastructure and services already in place. Now blueprint in the small area plan specifically call for a different neighborhood context so applicants applying for an urban edge here blueprint is calling out for urban specifically for the neighborhood context. When we look at the residential low future place type, it is predominant single unit uses as well as accessory dwelling units are appropriate here and then Lincoln is a local street, which is primarily characterized by residential uses. And then within the Future Growth Strategy map, it is classified as other areas of the city where we anticipate 10% of the employment and 20% of new housing in this location. As well as Blueprint has specific policy that mentions aid use, which is under the land use and bill form housing policy number four, which is diversify housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Now within the local neighborhood plan. The subject site is classified in the land use as single family. With an 80 you are under recommendation be one of the talks about allow accessory dwelling units to enable aging in place, additional income through rental and to increase the population density of neighborhood without altering its character. More specifically, and there is guidance within this area for updating the neighborhood context. So this is where the original zoned district is urban edge. This plan specifically as aligned with Blueprint Denver, calls for an update in the neighborhood context. So the Denver zoning codes are urban neighborhood context as opposed to the currently mapped urban edge context better reflects the use of alleys limiting or prohibiting curb cuts from street access and the continuation of detached sidewalks where possible, as well as tailored minimums on lot sites, which is an area where the existing zoning requires a 4500 square foot minimum zone that the Future Zone District should maintain to 4500 square foot lot zone, not minimum, which this is what the applicant is applying for. Four criteria two, three and five. It is called out within the staff report and under the fourth criteria justified circumstances, a city adopted plan as specified in the Globeville neighborhood plan as well as blueprint members. Therefore, CPD recommends a based on the findings of the report here have been met. Staff is available for any questions you may have as well as the applicant. Amanda Brien is also on the cross-party.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. We have no individual signed up to speak on this item this evening. Are there any questions for members of Council on Council Bill 20 20583. Seeing none. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 20583.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4334 Lincoln Street in Globeville.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4334 North Lincoln Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-7-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08012022_22-0654
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. We have no individual signed up to speak on this item this evening. Are there any questions for members of Council on Council Bill 20 20583. Seeing none. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 20583. Councilwoman CdeBaca. I'm just I'm very supportive of this and hope the rest of my colleagues will be as well. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20583.
Speaker 2: Can I? CdeBaca, I. Black Eye.
Speaker 0: Clark I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor, i. Herndon Hines.
Speaker 0: I. Cashman, i.
Speaker 2: Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 1: 12 days cancel 22 days, 0583 has passed. Councilmember Haynes, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0654 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: I move the council bill 22 to 0 654 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20654 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Hello, everyone. My name is Ed Semifinals. I'm here with 616 South Main Street. The current zoning is a single family zone district applying for a single family zone district with an 80 year. Now we're looking at a different part of town. This is Council District six in Cashman's district. This is located in Washington Park neighborhood. The site itself is just east of Wash Park. It is a single family house that is 6240 square foot. And the request is to allow for an excessive volume. The site itself is currently on us, you see, which is urban single unit C with the minimum block size of 5500 square feet. It is surrounded by us, you see. This single unit is on the street all around it. So the site itself is in the top left corner, which is a one story structure. But throughout this neighborhood we do see one, two, two story structures predominate single unit. So it went before the planning board on May 2nd. It was approved unanimously. But to date, we have had several comments. We've had two letters of support that are in the staff report, but we've had six letters of opposition, including the East Washington are are now who voted voted that the application is not consistent with the with the review criteria and they specified it within the staff report and then as well as six letters of of opposition mentioned concerns with property values, parking, traffic, noise, quality of life, short term rental impacts to the neighborhood, as well as safety concerns as well as density concerns specifically and opposition. There are several review criteria that we look at when analyzing the specific Maps amendment. The first one is to see what the plans for this specific part of town. We're only focusing on two plans, which is comprehensive plan 2040 as well as Blueprint Denver Land Use and Transportation Plan 2019. So there's several strategies specified in comprehensive a plan that are mentioned in the staff report. And I'm just going to jump into a good blueprint to classify this area as urban. When we look at the future place type, this area is classified as residential low, where it's predominantly single and two unit uses where accessory dwelling units are appropriate here. Vine Street is a local street, which is primarily characterized by residential uses. And then this specific site is classified as other areas of the city within the Future Growth Strategy Map, where we anticipate to see 10% of new employment as well as 20% of new housing. Blueprint has specific language around accessory dwelling units, which is found in the land use and built form housing policy number forward. It calls for diversifying housing choices through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. For review criteria two, three and five. It is specified in the staff report and for the fourth criteria which is justifying circumstance. It is consistent based on a city adopted plan from Blueprint Denver that was read earlier. Therefore CPD recommends approval based at all the findings of the report to have been met. Staff is available for questions as long as the applicant check is on for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening online. We've got Fred Blick.
Speaker 0: Thank you, members of council. I appreciate your time tonight. My name is Fred Glick. I live at 3850 North York in Denver's Clayton neighborhood. I am the vice chair of the Denver Planning Board. But I'm here today in my individual capacity. And while I'm here to speak in favor of this map, amendment is made. Be clear by the plan for post rezoning meets the criteria and given our commitment to it using Blueprint Denver. There's really too much to my mind, no good argument against this rezoning. However, I was so deeply concerned by one of the letters received in opposition that I felt compelled to be here tonight to speak to the points raised by the applicant's neighbors. These neighbors state that their neighborhood is one of Denver's most expensive, and they make clear their belief that they view potential edu residents whom they anticipate to be people of lesser means as a threat to the safety of their teenage daughters. They go on to describe 80 residents is generally transient and in transition. They mention in the midst of divorce, recently unemployed, in rehab, convicted criminals. I'm not even quite sure to start with this. The idea that certain people have no place in our residential neighborhoods for at least our most expensive ones because they're of lesser means that people in transition shouldn't be around families. There are no divorces with children who are loving parents. There are no recovering alcoholics who are washed. Park homeowners, rich people with criminal convictions are more worthy somehow than poor people with convictions. And sadly, I'm reminded of the ugly rhetoric around blockbusting. People who are different from you are coming. Hide your wives and daughters. I have an 80, you and my ten. It is admittedly in transition. She's an oncology nurse completing her pre-med requirements so that next year she can start med school. She's transitioning from being a nurse to being a doctor. I urge you to reject the sort of fear mongering that the neighbors have put forth and support this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Think. Think, think, think, think. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0654. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, just a couple of questions for you, please. Would you remind me what is the maximum size accessory dwelling unit that's permitted under the request to district?
Speaker 9: So the maximum size is 864 based off the large size that can be built here. And there's a height as well as four detached structures. It's 24 feet.
Speaker 0: Okay. Do we have any evidence whatsoever that the addition of an accessory dwelling unit diminishes property values?
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 0: Okay. Those are all my questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no one else in the queue. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 20654.
Speaker 0: Councilman Cashman Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I do think this I think this application meets the legal criteria by which we assess rezoning applications. I think Blueprint Denver is clear in its direction that accessory dwelling units are applicable in all neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood that has had tremendous change in the past couple of decades. My my friends, council Councilman Clark grew up in this neighborhood and I think is very as familiar as anyone with the level of change. I lived on Virginia Avenue across from Wash Park for many years and in a bungalow that still exists. But in throughout the neighborhood, these small bungalows have been replaced block after block by extremely large homes, and that have certainly changed the nature of the neighborhood. I still think it's a wonderful community in which to live, and I don't subscribe with due respect to the neighbors that that are in opposition. I don't believe that the addition of an 850 square foot home addition is a threat to the character of the neighborhood. I think it has every opportunity to gently diversify that community and provide much needed housing for for those that are not going to be able to afford property in that neighborhood. So I fully believe it's, uh, something worth supporting.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 610 South Vine Street in Washington Park.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 610 South Vine Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-7-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252022_22-0879
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Brenda. Councilmember Cashman, will you please read proclamation 2020 20879?
Speaker 0: I will be pleased to. And it was very impressive to honor Brendan for his 20 year career. And that was get down to some real history here. This is proclamation number 20 20879 honoring the Dyer family and Bonnie Brae Tavern for 88 years of service to the community. Whereas in 1933, Carl and Sue Dyer bought property on the western edge of the Bonnie Braves subdivision on a then dirt road named University Boulevard. And. Whereas, the Dyers first opened a gas station on their land, and then early the next year added a frame structure for a restaurant at 740 South University Boulevard. And. Whereas, Carl and Sue opened the Bonnie Brae Tavern in June 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression, and barely seven months after the repeal of Prohibition. And. Whereas, the tavern developed a widespread reputation for serving a hearty selection of home cooked comfort food, including their namesake pizza, as well as a full menu of classic adult beverages. And. WHEREAS, The Dyer's son, Michael, joined the business in the 1940s, and son Hank followed suit in the 1950s. And as the founders aged, they turned tavern operations over to their boys. And. WHEREAS, continuing the family tradition after growing up working at the restaurant themselves, Hank and Michael's sons Ricky and Michael Jr eventually took over the business from their parents and ended up working at the tavern 44 and 40 years, respectively. And. Whereas, having served Denver family's great comfort food and drink through the 1930s, forties, fifties, sixties, and the heyday of the seventies and eighties, when there was an hour wait for dinner on the weekends as Denver grew, along with more and more options for Denver, diners operating in Denver, restaurant in a nearly 100 year old building became more and more challenging. And. WHEREAS, on June 6th, Bonnie Brave Tavern celebrated 88 years in business. And. Whereas, after almost nine decades in business, the Dyer family has decided to move on to new challenges and turn the property over to new ownership and new uses. Closing the tavern doors forever on June 25th. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver declares July 25th, 2022, to be Bonnie Brae Tavern Day in Denver and thanks the entire Dyer family and their staff for providing 88 great years of fun, food, drink and community to generations of South Denver residents in Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest, and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation. And copies be delivered to the Dear Family.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Cashman, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President. And the proclamation number 20 20879 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Council Member Cashman.
Speaker 0: Yeah, 88 years is just a stupendous I mean, Brendan's career of 20 years, that's a long time. That's a long time. Before I ran for council, I spent 36 years running a neighborhood newspaper, which is where I met the Dyer family, and that was the bulk of my adult life. It was a huge part of the lives of my children. You've got that same thing repeated about three or four times with the Dyer family, generation after generation, spending their whole lives in this business. And the unique part of it is they were providing good food, great pizza, you know, but a place for community to exist and to to develop and for friends to meet, you know, the classic classic diner, whatever you want to call it. You know, when I first moved to Denver from Inglewood, we moved moved into a house on Virginia Avenue across from Wash Park. And it was a long day of moving and we're exhausted and went over to Bonnie Raitt Tavern friend recommended to go over to the tavern, get some food. And we did that. And that was my first meal there. And my son Pete worked for me for a little while when when I was on election night in 2015, where we're going to go to have an election night party. We were at the tavern and fortunately it was a happy night all around. And and there have been plenty of days and nights there since that time. And the day before it closed, I was running around too busy to stop for a meal, but had just stuck my head in the screen door and looked around one more time. And it's just such a gift for the community. And I've been I don't know, I think we got three generations as of four sitting there now. And I just want to thank you all most sincerely for for just being there. I couldn't wish you any more of the best and wherever life takes you from here. But yeah, thanks. Thanks a lot to the entire family. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council President. I wanted to thank you, Councilmember Cashman for bringing this forward. This was such a special place for so many people, me included. I grew up just a couple of blocks away and my childhood is peppered with memories. I think tonight we should probably also consider a proclamation for whoever you got those teal blue booths from. I don't know if they were there for all 88 years, but they were there the longest running upholstery proclamation. I think it should come to whoever did those again. I can see them. I can. I can. You know, it's one of those experiences where I can close my eyes and I can smell the place, I can feel the place, I can see the place. And my childhood is peppered with, you know, celebrations and and of soccer seasons back when they actually let us play youth soccer at Wash Park. And we'd come up after the season and have our parties there and spent, you know, so much of so many times in my childhood growing up there as a place my family would go and then got to create a second set of memories for me at that place as an adult because a good friend gentleman I worked with, Jeff Shoemaker, like many, many people in the city, laid claim to a booth that was their booth. I was wondering how many people also claimed Shoemaker's Booth as a zone? A couple times I walked in when someone was in his booth and he would just be staring them down from the bar, waiting for them. And and I know that, you know, it was a very special place for him and stood in a place of transition in his lifetime. And so I got to spend a lot of time in there, you know, getting to know Shoemaker's Booth and his view. So just a really one of those places that the doors may have closed, but it will be a place that as long as those of us who spent time there, as long as it lives in here, that it will it will be an institution and a part of Denver for for many, many, many years because of what you all and your family gave to our city and creating one of those special and iconic places that that lives beyond its physical doors. So thank you, Councilman Cashman, for bringing this forward. And thank you to this family for everything that you did for my family and so many other people in this city. The Council President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Cashman pizza, please.
Speaker 4: I can eat.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I'm black. I see. Tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 0: I. When I.
Speaker 4: Fillmore. I. Herndon Heights.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 Nights, 13 eyes proclamation 20 2-0879 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for the proclamation acceptance. Councilmember Cashman will start the five minute timer. Please call whomever you'd like to come up to accept the candidacy.
Speaker 0: About $1,000 back and someone would like to come up. Ricky, any of your family? Yes. I would like to thank everybody for their proclamation. My comments will be short and I won't be as sassy as the guy that just sat on death row. But. And if you could introduce yourselves. Anyway, I would also like to thank my children, Chris and Patrick and my daughter Theresa, who's not here for working for 20 years and helping us stay open when I'm 33. Sorry. Time flies now, but thank you very much. Thank you all. Mr. Cashman, known for so many years and so many faces back here we waited on for years. It's a hard one. We were cleaning out this week and giving up our keys on Friday, so it's kind of a hard one. But my family, those crazies that are sitting with me back here, we did it together and it was it was good. Our our fathers and my grandma and grandpa would be proud. So I hope anyway. Anyway, thank you again. Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring the Dire Family and Bonnie Brae Tavern for 88 years of service to the community.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252022_22-0637
|
Speaker 1: Thank you all. We have three public hearings tonight for those participating in person. When called upon, please come to the podium on the presentation monitor on the wall. You'll see your time counting down for those participating virtually when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will ask permission to allow us to promote you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen will flash and we'll see you can reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You'll be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera. If you have one in your microphone, you'll see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you've finished speaking, you'll change back to participant mode and see your screen flush one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their Home Address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you're available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you'll be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in person participants and then alternating to virtual speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your council, your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0637 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 3: From then on I move that council bill 20 20637 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded the required public hearings for Council Bill 20 20637 is open. May we have the staff report? I think he council president. Can you introduce yourself?
Speaker 2: Yes. I'm Libby Adams with Community Planning and Development. And I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment at 4710 North Stuart Street. This application is located in Council District one in the Berkeley neighborhood, and the applicant is.
Speaker 1: Requesting to rezone.
Speaker 2: From you, as you see to you as you see one to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. As stated previously, the current zoning is urban single unit C, which allows the Urban House building form on a minimum size of 5500 square feet. The existing land use is a single unit home and this slide shows the existing building performance scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. A postcard notifying neighboring property owners was sent out on March 24th, and then the planning board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning on May 18th. And to date, staff has not received any comments from members of the public. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for rezoning to be approved. The first is consistency with adopted plans, and there are two plans that are applicable to this rezoning. You can find more information on how this rezoning meets the strategies of a comprehensive plan in the staff report. I'll just focus on Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 1: So the.
Speaker 2: Future neighborhood context and Blueprint Denver's urban. And then the future place type is identified as low residential. And these are areas where ads are appropriate. And then the future street type for North Stuart Street is local and these are mostly characterized by residential uses, also consistent with the request. The Growth Area Strategy and blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by 2040. And then.
Speaker 1: Blueprint also has specific.
Speaker 2: Policy guidance. So the land use and built form housing policy four talks about diversifying housing choice by allowing aid use throughout all of our residential areas. Staff also finds the rezoning meets the next two criteria. It will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing our adopted plans and providing a new type of housing unit in a largely single unit area. And there's also a justifying circumstance in the adopted language and Blueprint Denver about its use in all of our residential areas.
Speaker 1: And then lastly.
Speaker 2: This proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context. The residential districts purpose and then the specific intent of the US. You see one zoned district.
Speaker 1: So finding all five criteria have been met.
Speaker 2: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Libby. We do not have any speakers signed up to speak on this item this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 20 20637. Seeing none. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 20637. Councilmember Sandoval. Any comments?
Speaker 2: No. Just help me find guidance and hope my colleagues support it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0637.
Speaker 4: Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Black I. CdeBaca I. Clark.
Speaker 0: I. Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 0: He. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman can each i. Ortega I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13/8 13 ies council 20 20637 has passed. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0694 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4710 North Stuart Street in Berkeley.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4710 North Stuart Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252022_22-0694
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13/8 13 ies council 20 20637 has passed. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0694 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0694 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20694 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Good afternoon.
Speaker 5: Members of council. My name is Jump Benefit Senior City Planning Planner with Cabinet Planning and Development. And today I'm going to present your rezoning for 51 to 1 lead. Still drive. The applicant is requesting to resign from duty for 36 to EP to be. The proposed rezoning is located in Council District five, which is some of the district. And it is a vacant lot in the Washington, Virginia built neighborhood. The property owner of Standard Lutheran Church of Denver, Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver, are proposing to rezone part of their property from B2 436 to E2, which would allow for the development of four duplexes that they intend to sell to households making up or below 80% of the area. Median income. The proposals are given it to unit based on district allows for the urban House, detached accessory dwelling units, duplex and tandem housebuilding forms. I would like to quickly note here that while the others for the site is leads still drive, the main access to the property is on Dakota Avenue and in Fairfax Street. The next slides will illustrate better this linear axis on leaves still drag. You can see it there. The current zoning of the subject side is beauty. 436. The beauty was adopted in 1997 and applies to whole parcel as shown on the map. It was intended to allow for the construction of a single building with 66 units for a special care home for senior citizens. It allows a maximum height for a building of up to 35 feet. The facility was supposed to be an extension of the ministry of our Standard Lutheran Church, but financing was not secured and the special care home was never developed. The duty also allows for the development of uses allowed in R-1 district, which is a predominantly single unit district in former Chapter 59. The existing land use on the site is vacant. It's surrounded by mostly public possible uses where the church is to a north west single unit, residential uses to the north, northeast and east, and commercial retail uses doing so while the subject site is currently vacant. The portion of the solar that is not being resolved is currently being used as an informal open space and vegetable garden. This slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site. With the proposed rezoning site on the top right on the bottom right image. You can see the commercial uses just south of the site on Lidl, on the top right image, the existing informal open space and vegetable garden located just west of the subject site. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to Code Requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on May 18. Since the staff report was published, we have received two letters of support one from the preservation of residential South Hilltop Neighborhood Association and one from a community member. Stuff also received one letter in opposition to a rezoning that expresses concerns with increased traffic and density. As you'll know, there's five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of the request. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to his rezoning. We have comprehensive plan 2040 and we have a blueprint under. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies in the comprehensive plan and they can be found on the staff report. Now looking at live in Denver, the future neighborhood context is urban edge. Within this context, we find a range of uses from single unit and multi-unit residential to commercial corridors and centers. As the rezoning would allow a variety of building forms in an urban setting, the proposed district is appropriate and consistent with the blueprint. Denver Context Description. The future place of this area is called Community Corridor, which typically provides some mix of offices, commercial and residential. And heights generally go up to five stories. Dakota Avenue and Fairfax Street are designated as local or un designated streets, and little is classified as a commercial ideal arterial future street type. The proposed E2 district is consistent with this description because it is a residential district that allows for a single unit and two unit uses and is intended to promote existing and future patterns of lower skilled multi-unit building forms. The subject property is located within the community centers and corridor's growth area. These areas are expected to see 20% of new employment growth and 25% of new housing growth by 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy map in this area. Blueprint also has policy language around rezoning properties from the former. Chapter 59 Zoning Code and out of customs zoning such as the site plan specific conditions on the subject property. Therefore, it still finds that this proposed rezoning is consistent with urban Denver. Stuff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare of the city, primarily through its implementation of adopted plans and through improving design standards. Additionally, rezoning out a portion of 5436 will not have a negative impact on the remaining of the site and development under the current, but would still be possible. The rezoning would bring this property from former Chapter 59 Soni into the Denver zoning code. Such a change is listed in the zoning code as an appropriate, justified circumstance. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Sound District purpose and intent of the E2 based on district. Based on the review criteria does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have six individuals signed up to speak on this this evening. We will begin with Michael Sumwalt. If you can re-introduce yourself when you come up. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes. Hello. My name is Michael Dumont, a resident of Highlands Ranch, Colorado. And my daughter and I have been members of August and a Lutheran church for over five years now. So thank you for this opportunity to appear before you in favor of this of this proposal. For the past two years, I've been serving as the president of the coronation and chairperson of our church as governing body or counsel. It's a privilege to stand here before you as a representative of my church, which is overwhelmingly shown its support for this initiative involving our undeveloped property, to hopefully be used in a very small way to help alleviate the challenges to affordable housing that our city of Denver has been facing for some time now. In our partnership with Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver, we feel strongly that we can contribute to making progress in this area of need. And as an added benefit, they have helped us build an even stronger relationship with our community through this initiative that we believe will be a benefit to everyone involved along with our church. This effort is greatly supported by our local councilwoman, Mansoor Sawyer, the South Hilltop Neighborhood Association, which represents the neighborhood just east of our church and several of our closest neighbors. One of them actually has their house backing up to the lot that we are hoping to develop. So as a member and representative of the Augustine Lutheran Church, I ask for your support, this rezoning effort to help alleviate the need for affordable housing. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Scott Kilgore.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Scott Kilgour. I live at 435 South Fourth Street, just around the corner from the subject property. I'm a board member of the Preservation of Residential South Hilltop Neighborhood Association, and I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the R.A. and reiterate our support of this rezoning request as outlined in our letter of support . We feel that the current party zoning is not compatible with the neighborhood context and that the proposed zoning district will result in a building Forman scale that is much more similar to the surrounding homes. While allowing for a gentle increase in density, the proposed development will add new homes and amenity rich central neighborhood while cleaning up an underused personal property, fixing existing drainage issues at the site. We are excited that these for sale homes will be offered to buyers under 80%. AMI and the applicant team has proven a willingness to collaborate with our neighborhood. We've had multiple points of engagement with them and they've been very responsive to our feedback. We do not have a good neighbor agreement in place with this rezoning, but we feel confident that the applicant team will continue to engage with the neighborhood and be responsive to us. They've already agreed to a number of things in writing, as described in our letter of support. This rezoning request only impacts the 51 to 1 sale parcel that faces Dakota and Fairfax and Augustana Lutheran Church. And the applicant team has reiterated to the neighborhood multiple times that the remaining piece of the parcel will continue to be used as a park and that that will stay. Discussion among our members and board has been overall very positive on the rezoning. We had eight board members vote in favor of supporting this rezoning, a zero voted opposed and one member that abstained due to the lack of response when voting electronically due to COVID. So yes, the preservation of residential South Hilltop Neighborhood Neighborhood Association urges City Council to support this rezoning request. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Ann Hultquist.
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm in Hillcrest on the senior pastor at Augustana Lutheran Church. I've been there for six years and I'm also a resident of Denver. In 2018, our congregation began to have this dream together, knowing that we own this piece of very vacant, dilapidated property and hearing from the Interfaith Alliance at the time about the ways they were encouraging many different faith communities throughout the metro area to continue to consider building affordable housing. Interfaith Alliance helped us begin to give shape to the dream of serving our community and neighbors in this very concrete way, using our property and our resources. We've been privileged to partner with Habitat for Humanity Metro Denver. As the project has moved from dream to close to reality. We've also been privileged to receive support from the South Hilltop Neighborhood Association, as you hear and from Council Representative Sawyer, Augustine is a congregation that is firmly planted in our Denver area. We've been at our present location in Hilltop since 1958. Our core values are worship, grow and grow, and that last word go means to us that we are not turned in on ourselves, but that the purpose of being a faith community is to turn outward to see what we can do to make the world a better place . We have a number of outreach ministries that connect us to our neighborhood in the metro area, but we're so excited to imagine these townhomes, the neighbors who will live there and the way that we can play a part, a small part of bringing decent, affordable housing to people who will call our neighborhood home or call as a faith community is to love and serve. And this is a wonderful way for us to be able to fulfill that call. I urge the Council to support this rezoning.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Kim. Sarah.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Sarah and I reside near this location and I'm here tonight to support this zoning. I have been so impressed by the work between the community Habitat and Augustana. It's a great model to see people really welcoming affordable housing in our neighborhood. It's a great neighborhood with wonderful schools, beautiful parks, transit, and it's the perfect place for affordable housing. This also meets the criteria for a rezoning, and I'm hopeful you will support this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Corey Whittaker.
Speaker 0: Good evening, counsel. My name's Corey Whittaker and I live in Lakewood and I lead the real estate team with Habitat for Humanity, Metro Denver. I'm going to talk a little bit tonight about our application to Arizona. So back in 2009, Habitat from the partnership with Augustine Lutheran Church to execute the vision that you've heard of using some of their property to address that critical need for affordable homeownership in Denver. The rezoning request before you tonight is one step in making that vision a reality. Going to talk a little bit about how we arrived at that zoning designation that we're asking for and how it meets the approval criteria. Habitat approaches all of its developments. Balancing three things. We balance affordability, which is key to what Habitat does, and it's key to our mission livability. This really speaks to creating a functional and successful development for those who are living in it and neighborhood context. We want to respect and we want to respond to the surrounding character habitat in August and are proposing to rezone a portion of the property from PUD to E2 B to develop four duplexes for a total of eight homes that you zoned district are a two unit allowance for that duplex building form, which fits that urban edge context that this area is in and it's a more efficient building type to build. So one step in helping us make these homes more affordable. These homes will be three and four bedrooms in size with one dedicated off street parking space per home, as well as one reserved space and the adjacent Augusta in a parking lot. The additional space per home is being provided by Augusta to help alleviate some of the concerns from the neighborhood, from the neighbors about an increase in street parking along Dakota. The homes will also respond to the surrounding context by being two stories in height with pitched roofs and a mixture of siding materials. As part of our continued dialog with the R.A., Abbott has agreed to bring the building design to the R.A. for comment prior to submitting for permit. The rezoning request also meets all the required criteria, including aligning with the goals of the 2040 comprehensive plan, such as develop housing that is affordable to residents at all income levels. Goals and Blueprint Number 2019, such as expanding family friendly housing throughout the city. And it is consistent with the urban engineering context as outlined in Blueprint Number. I would like to thank Augustana for having this vision. I would like to thank the R.A. for being receptive and supportive of this project, and I would urge you to approve this rezoning. Affordable homeownership is a critical need in Denver, and this development is one small step in addressing many.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. We'll move to our Zoom platform for Heather Lafferty. Heather, if you would accept the promotion, we can bring you into the panel.
Speaker 2: Well, greetings, city council members. Thank you for allowing me to join this evening virtually. My name is Heather Lafferty and I live in Denver's first district. And I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver and our project proposal in partnership with Augustana Lutheran Church. I know many of you have worked with Habitat or certainly familiar with our work. We have built and repaired hundreds of homes across the metro Denver area. I should say across Denver. And we continue to seek opportunities to be innovative, to find new ways to find land and to build homes so that more and more people have the opportunity to have a good, safe, decent and affordable place to call home. Habitat supports and advocates for policies that expand our housing affordability. And just want to take a moment to applaud City Council for the work that you have done in this arena. We appreciate that you are trying to find ways to help address the lack of affordable housing and support for this rezoning. Tonight is one step towards that. Not only do we think this is a great project, we think that it is a unique collaboration between a church, a neighborhood, and a nonprofit developer like Habitat to find new ways to create the most needed, much needed affordable housing in our community. So we hope this will serve as a model. And many of the speakers before me have talked about all of the benefits of this. So I won't repeat those, but just want to take the opportunity to say this is exactly what we need in our community. We're grateful for the community support. We're grateful for the the imagination that the congregation at the church has and certainly for our city council's support as we have put this forward. Encouraging quality, infill development that's consistent with neighborhoods like the Hilltop area is a great way to get housing accomplished. So thank you for considering this rezoning tonight. And I do urge you, we always would love a unanimous yes. In support of this project. Thank you so much for your time and for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members and from of counsel and council. Bill 20 2-069 for Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Libby, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. First. It looks like excess of the lead steel is primarily off of Dakota, is that correct?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. And is there any other access to the remaining part of the land off of lead steel, or will there be access off of Dakota because it looks like only part of the pad is being resolved. Right.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So the I can show you a slide if it helps. But there is there's a street. It has a lot of it's very steep. And that's the connection that comes from lead steel. So it's like a it's a dirt road right now. So there's going to be no connection there. My instinct is that when the dude like back in 97 when they did that project that was planned to be like the connection to lead still not anymore. Like the access now is going to be. And you can see it here. I have an image that shows where the is. So here you can see the corner. So it's this image on the right. So you can see that it's like direct access to the townhouses is going to be there.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Can I just jump in for a minute to answer that question as well? So the the access from lead steel, it's only about an 11 feet wide. It's a very weird shaped parcel. It looks that way. Right. Exactly. And and it's an incredibly steep hill. So there's and with the drainage challenges and the infrastructure that would have to be built out. There is no way to to make it make an entrance or an exit up that hill. It has a lot to do with like flooding, water flow and stuff like that. I could get really nerdy on you, but I'll spare you. So the back. So the entrance is going to be on Dakota and Fairfax, which right now is just an ELL that ends in this empty parcel. And then the Augusta in a parking lot is right there.
Speaker 3: So access is then partially on this site or adjacent to it. So we're not just trying to understand that. I see my colleague has a map right now of the of the property looking at it.
Speaker 1: Corey, I don't know if you have any info on this as well.
Speaker 3: Because part of the reason for asking the question is it looks like at some point the the remainder of the vacant land can be available for development, but access to it seems very limited from Leeds Steel and then the access from Florida sorry to Florida Dakota.
Speaker 0: So prior to prior to something for the rezoning we submitted for concept plan and we worked with Daddy specifically on the corner of Dakota and Fairfax. And Daddy approved kind of a T intersection right there for a future entrance onto the property. So if the pad was ever to be developed, there is an entrance from Dakota and Fairfax County that.
Speaker 3: Okay. I see it on this graphic. Thank you, Libby. And if you get this back, happy to give it back to you. So I want you to just ask a couple of questions about how many units can be on the site.
Speaker 5: So I think the plan calls for units. And again, we keep it. So it's so duplex. We see it.
Speaker 3: It's okay. And then. So I think we clarified the questions of Dakota. So I think that's all I have. So I appreciate you helping me understand what that access looks like and the fact that there will continue to be opportunity for development of the remainder of the site. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember PANITCH.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. You probably said this and I missed it, but I didn't see it in the PowerPoint when I went back to look. So I'm really excited about the affordability. Is there agreement with hosts to do this as an alternative or they will just satisfy the ordinance at the time? How are how are we dealing with the current and or future ordinances that will be in effect when they pull the building permit?
Speaker 5: So there's no agreement. I mean. Habitat is doing 100% affordable housing. That's because they're working with the church and they own it. But there's no good neighbor agreement. There's no.
Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: So so 100% affordable homes are exempt from the ordinance. So you're just are you playing do you want to just answer? Are you planning to just state that exemption at the time of building permit? Okay. For the record, there's a nod from the back room. Thank you. That's it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Fran, I'm curious to follow up on Councilwoman Ortega's questions, being a math geek myself. What is the purpose of the remnant that runs along the south side of this parcel rezoning? Because it seems to me it would have no utility at all. As Councilwoman Sawyer pointed out, it's a steep hill, but it's still part of the Peabody, but it looks a dead ends at a private property line, so it looks like it has no independent utility at all. Why would that not be included in the in the rezoning?
Speaker 5: Honestly, we have the same question. A planning board. So it's good. I'm noticing that it's very steep, as you say, it's very steep. It's not really developable. The applicant proposes an area that they want to develop, and that's the area like when you got we talked about like redeveloping the whole site. We talked about going all the way to south, but it didn't make sense because they just that's the area that they wanted to build the townhouses. And we looked at it and because it's so steep in the south, we figured it doesn't really matter. So the boat on the south is going to stay part of the rest of the beauty.
Speaker 0: Could would someone from the church be able to answer what future plan for the rest of the PD might incorporate that little strip? Is there? Do we have an outlook for development of the rest of the property because it still is under the old PD that that is very, very highly specific and particular it is. So when we when we looked at the property, there is a very steep slope, I think it's about 20 feet that stretches along the further than the portion that we are rezoning. So when we looked at what we needed to rezone, the parcel of land worked without including that. And since that feature kind of ran along the entire property, we felt like it was best to exclude it from what we were rezoning because at some future time they might be able to to redevelop that entire property. Now, I don't want to speak for behalf of the church, but currently the property is a park. It is a privately owned park, but it is open to the public and the church has no intention of changing that. Use anything. All right. Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council. Members of Council and Council Bill 20 20694 Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam President. I just want to thank you guys so much. This is. It's so exciting. I'm so glad we're finally here. The first meeting that we had, or maybe was the second meeting before they filed their application was like three days before the COVID shutdown, and it looked like maybe this wasn't going to be able to happen after all. And there was a lot of challenges. The original hope on the site was to be able to build 20 units. And because of that, because of that crazy slope, it just can't be done. But there would be there would have to be retaining walls built in drainage. And like I said, I can infrastructure nerd out about it for you guys, but you don't need to hear the whole story. It's a shame that it is that it is exactly that way because it is a fantastic plan. It is a fantastic location. And I wish you guys would have mentioned, but you didn't. So the Congregation of Augustana Church actually voted on what to do with the land and what and this is what they voted on. They wanted to develop this parcel to support families of middle income earners in our community. And I don't know how many of you are aware, but others stand to have the most incredible after school program and preschool programs. And so most of the community members around the hilltop and south to help them across more areas have been in and out of Augusta on at least 100 million times with their young kids. And so this is a really exciting opportunity for the community. It is consistent with the adopted plans. Absolutely. And fits all of the criteria. And I just want to acknowledge the the neighborhood association, they have been so wonderful and supportive. Of course, there are residents who had questions and concerns and they were wonderful about going out, setting up Zoom meetings, asking questions and just really getting in back and forth with Habitat and with Augustana to see, you know, where those pain point issues were so that they could be worked out ahead of time. Just really, really excited. I think for those of you who might have missed it, this is it could have been a 63 unit senior development. And so it's a down zoning and that that sort of left hand section on the map that you saw where there is kind of nothing there, it looks like there's nothing there. But what's actually there is the most extraordinary, you know, park and community garden, an area that is open to the public even though it's private land . Augustana has been just extraordinary partners to the community for many, many, many years. And I don't know if you can tell, but I am super excited for this so I can support it strongly enough. I am so grateful for your partnership and for Habitat's partnership and for all that you guys have done. And I just I'm so glad we're here tonight and so thrilled to get started. So let me know when we need some volunteers to get building for Habitat, because I cannot wait. I'm really, really thrilled that this is just going to be such a wonderful thing for our community. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll Call Council Bill 20 20694.
Speaker 4: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Black I CdeBaca I clerk.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I Herndon, I Hines.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Kenny. I Ortega. I read. Central high. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results. 3939 Council Bill 20 20694 has passed. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 20 22040804 on the floor for publication.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5101 Leetsdale Drive in Washington Virginia Vale.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 436 to E-TU-B (planned development to urban edge) located at 5101 Leetsdale Drive in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-21-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252022_22-0804
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results. 3939 Council Bill 20 20694 has passed. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 20 22040804 on the floor for publication.
Speaker 3: Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2004 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20804 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Good evening, city council members. My name is Melissa Chayefsky and the executive director for the Office of Children's Affairs. I am here today with our Partners from Denver Preschool Program to ask for a change to the Denver Revised Municipal Code that would allow DPI to pursue other opportunities, including universal pre-K. Beyond disseminating the city's sales tax revenue. Our agency fully supports this code amendment and has absolute confidence in DPS ability to continue its trusted partnership with the city while expanding its role in the overall early childhood landscape through contracts with the state and other entities. OCA and Denver Preschool Program have over a 15 year history of partnering together to bring affordable, high quality preschool to Denver children and families. Since deep inception, the city has modeled multiple special revenue funds around. Deep and deep has evolved to meet the needs of the city and its residents. DPP is well positioned to serve as the local lead for the state's universal pre-K program and OCA fully supports DPP stepping into this role. The implementation of universal pre-K in Denver will benefit from CBP's expertize and understanding of how to get funds to families and providers and DBP will even be better equipped to support the development of an early childhood ecosystem that can serve more families.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. We do not have any speakers signed up for comment to speak on this item this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 20 20804. Seeing none. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 20804. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: As the appointed City Council member for the Downtown Denver Partnership or the Denver Preschool Program. It has been an honor to serve with them. And this two weeks ago we had a board retreat talking about the need and talking about our priorities and talking about how we can prioritize more children and get more of our at risk youth into this program. So I would just ask my colleagues to approve this and thank you to the downtown to the Denver preschool program. Sorry, I don't I have that in my head for all of the work you do as the mom who experienced it for my two children, you provided preschool to my daughter and to my son. And in your sense, you've been established. I don't think you've ever come before city council to change anything. You've just been good stewards of our tax dollars and making sure that our four year olds have access to early education. And just want to recognize and to Joe, thank you for being here and thank you for your leadership in this early childhood education. We are all standing on your shoulders and it's been a pleasure to serve on the board with you and get to hear from you and just get to learn your institutional knowledge. So I just wanted to acknowledge you being here. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I also wanted to add my my support for this effort in Ajo. Used to run the mile high. Early childhood education that had locations across the city before it was taken over by. I can't even think of the new name. But anyway, my daughter attended one of those one of those programs in North Denver, and she's still at it. And my daughter's already in her forties and in Ajo is still working on this important issue. I also want to acknowledge the role that one of our predecessors, Councilwoman Sue Casey, played in this process. She's the one that had worked to move this issue forward to the ballot to encourage the voters to support this funding. She helped educate all of us about the importance of young our young children and especially our children of color, being able to start kindergarten at the same level as their peers. Because children who have the early childhood education. Compared to those who do not start out with about a 15,000 word vocabulary difference, then the children who do not. And so it really matters being able to give our children this opportunity to be in these environments where they're they're learning and they're getting ready to start public education or private education in some cases. But it has made a huge difference. And it means that as they continue on through the other grades, they can be at par with their peers. Obviously, having access to healthy food and some of those other things is is also equally as important. And we now have the of Denver healthy Healthy Food for Denver Kids program that is working with our Head Start programs as well to ensure that our kids are getting what they need. The families have access to food over the weekends and things like that in cases where we have, you know, food insecurity. So I just want to say thank you to and Joe and Elsa and your whole team for the work you all have done to bring this forward and for the ongoing work that you do in working with our families throughout the city of Denver. I know our neighboring jurisdictions are envious of this program and the fact that Denver taxpayers saw the the valuable benefit of all of our kids being given this opportunity. So thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: The public hearing is closed. That was comments. I'm sorry. I lost my place in the group. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20804.
Speaker 4: Black. See Tobacco. Clark.
Speaker 0: I. Flint I.
Speaker 4: Gilmer I. Herndon. Hanes Hinds.
Speaker 0: Cashmere High.
Speaker 4: Kinney, i. Ortega. I. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. I. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Constable 20 2-004 has been ordered published on Monday, August 15. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 20803 designating 1090 Cherokee Street as a structure for preservation.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance revising Article III, Chapter 11 of the Revised Municipal Code.
Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code, Article III, Section 11-21 to strike the word “sole” from the Denver Revised Municipal Code to allow Denver Preschool Program (DPP) to pursue additional funding opportunities and programmatic services beyond administering programming under contract with the City. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-13-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07182022_22-0741
|
Speaker 0: Councilmember Black has called out Bill 791 for an amendment under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Flynn, go ahead with your comments on resolution 741.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I want to recognize and thank Councilman Herndon for the long and tedious work he's been doing on modernizing our meetings. This meeting will look a lot different next week, and I don't know if Councilman Herndon might want to talk after me about how it will look different. But I wanted to. I will support the resolution and the changes. But I do have some concerns about moving public hearings to begin as early as 530 rather than the 6:00 time that we have now to start any public hearings. It used to be Councilman Ortega will remember it used to be that this meeting would start at 630 in the evening and it would give working families and folks coming through rush hour, maybe a grab a little bite to eat and come down here and attend a public hearing at 630. When these meetings were moved to 530. It was with the understanding that no public hearing would begin until 6:00. And so if this preliminary part of the meeting had wrapped up at 545, we would which we would recess until 6:00 to give people a chance to come down here or now with the hybrid model to get online after they've come home, maybe changed out of their work clothes, maybe fed the kids or or did some other business. And I would rather that this resolution had set the Times for the afternoon session of council to begin at 3:00 rather than 330, and for the evening session to start at 530 with the general public comment session and then the public hearings starting at 6:00. I think that would have been much friendlier, much more friendly to our public who comment whether they're online or whether they come down here in person. But nevertheless, I will support the changes because I think they're much needed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Resolution 842 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council resolution 22, dash 084 to be adopted.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure concerning the time and order of regular council meetings.
Amends the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-21-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07182022_22-0791
|
Speaker 0: Lebanese Lebanese Council Resolution 22 zero 42 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Bill 791 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 20 2-0791 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Black, your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 20 2-0791 be amended for the.
Speaker 0: Following particulars page one.
Speaker 4: Strike lines six through ten and replace with four an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition.
Speaker 0: There.
Speaker 4: Of by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of B simple.
Speaker 0: Easement and other.
Speaker 4: Interests, including any rights and interests related to a pertinent to properties designated as needed for the Federal Boulevard. Pedestrian Safety Improvements.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been. Has it been moved and seconded? Yes. Comments by members of Council Councilmember Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council President. This amendment replaces an incorrect title to match the bill description used as it passed through committee.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to the 791.
Speaker 2: Black. I see. Tobacco. Clark.
Speaker 3: I. When I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor i Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman can each i. Ortega, Sandoval.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 3939.
Speaker 0: The Council bill 20 20791 has been amended. Council member for immediate a new motion to publish as amended.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 20 20791 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 20791 as amended. Seeing no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20791 as amended.
Speaker 4: Black Sky.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca.
Speaker 0: Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn II.
Speaker 0: Gilmore I.
Speaker 2: Herndon Hines. High Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Sawyer Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes counts at a 22 dash, 0791 has been ordered published as amended. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you'll need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a blog for the following items. All series of 22 771 773 741 752 772 776 777 778 779 781 782 786 795 796 797 774 843 732 737 738 746 646, seven, 30 and 695.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. CdeBaca I.
Speaker 2: Clark. All right. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor, I. Herndon, I. Hines All right. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 3939 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 20477 changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in the Regis neighborhood.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties designated as needed for the Federal Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Improvements.
Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation of all or any portion of any property interest as needed in support of the Federal Boulevard Pedestrian Right-of-Way Safety Improvement Project in Council District 1, including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, permits and other appurtenances. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-8-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-5-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07182022_22-0477
|
Speaker 0: Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Flynn Will you please put Council Bill 20 2-4, seven, seven on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move the council bill 20 2-0477 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-477 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am. Good evening, Madam. Council and Council. Good evening. Value from community planning and development filling in for my colleague Andrew Webb to present this proposed rezoning in the Regis neighborhood. The proposed Legislative Map Amendment is sponsored by City Council member Amanda Sandoval and would be rezoning properties with single unit zoning in the Regis neighborhood to allow accessory dwelling units for short adus. The proposed rezoning is in Council District one and is in the Regis neighborhood at the far northwest corner of the city. If adopted, it would rezone approximately 1025 parcels or approximately 145 acres to U.S., U.S. one or urban neighborhood context single unit residential with accessory dwelling units allowed. The next few slides will summarize existing context of the area, including current zoning, land uses and building firm and scale lithium. Existing zoning of the subject area is you as you see currently a single unit zone district in the urban neighborhood. Context surrounding zoning includes you as you see to the south of I-70, open space to the west in commercial corridor along federal to the east properties in the commercial area to the south of the Regis University campus are zoned for mixed use. The neighborhood to the north has city of Wheat Ridge ar dash to zoning a district that allows single unit and duplex uses. Existing line users in the subject area are primarily single unit residential users with a handful of duplex and multi-unit uses distributed throughout the neighborhood. Adjacent land uses include the university campus to the northeast, commercial and higher density residential along low levels south of the universe of university auto oriented commercial uses along federal to the east. A golf course to the West and I-70 to the north. This slide shows examples of the existing built form and scale in the Regis neighborhood. The image at the top right shows typical one and two storey residential development on the west side of the neighborhood. The image in the center shows a typical streetscape in the area south of university, and the bottom photo shows development along Lowell South at the university. In terms of public outreach, the applicant sent mailers and distributed fliers about the proposed rezoning in November of 2021 and held two virtual town halls in December. The District one office hosted an online survey from November 2021 to February of 2022, and of the 292 responses received, 89% of the responses said they supported this proposed rezoning. To speak to the process. This item went to planning board on April 20th, followed by Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 3rd, and is being heard today by City Council. With regard to public comment, staff has not received formal input from any Arnaud's in the area as of the date of the staff report . CPD has received more than 35 letters and written comments from residents indicating support for the proposed amendments as a way to add lower cost housing options and opportunities for the neighborhood. Staff also received two written comments in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about additional on street parking demand. In order to adopt a legislative rezoning, the Council must find the proposal is consistent with these three criteria from the Denver zoning code. With regard to the first criterion, there are three adopted plans that impact the Regis neighborhood the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver and the Denver Office of Housing Stability. Five Year Plan. This proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver's. Recommended. Sorry. This proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver's recommended future neighborhood context of urban as the proposed US. You see, one zone district is within the urban context. Blueprint. Denver designates the subject area with a future place type of low residential, which is characterized primarily by single and two unit residential uses, and where Blueprint states that accessory dwelling units should be encouraged. The Regis neighborhood is served by a variety of street types, including residential collectors, commercial arterials and local streets. Rezoning to allow adus is appropriate for this grid of street types. Blueprint. Denver's growth strategy identifies the subject area as being within all other areas of the city where most lower scale residential growth is expected. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with several Blueprint Denver strategies, including recommendations to expand allowance for accessory dwelling units in residential areas and to prioritize larger scale legislative rezonings to implement plan recommendations. As you are aware, Blueprint also recommends analysis of rezonings with an equity lens by considering access to jobs and services, vulnerability to inventory displacement and impacts to housing diversity with regard to access to opportunity. The Regis Neighborhood House has averaged scores for access to health.
Speaker 4: Care.
Speaker 5: And lower than average child obesity. This rezoning will provide new housing in an area where daily needs can be met. With regard to volcanic vulnerability to displacement, the region's neighborhood is generally less vulnerable due to a higher than average household income and higher than average percent of home ownership. This proposed rezoning will allow more property owners to establish an accessory dwelling unit on their property, which can be an opportunity to build wealth and help keep current residents in place and provide more housing options for households who are vulnerable to displacement. Finally, with regard to housing diversity, this area has a lower than average number of lower cost missing middle housing and rental housing. This proposed rezoning will help increase the availability of both. The proposed rezoning furthers the furthers several recommendations of the host's five year strategic plan, including recommendations to encourage smaller scale development and affordable housing and expansion of accessory dwelling units. Regarding the other two criteria, this rezoning to you, as you see, one will resort real will result in the uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and height regulations. The proposed rezoning will also improve public health, safety and welfare by introducing a new type of housing in the area that allows people with a range of income levels to continue to live in the neighborhood. And by allowing limited infill development with a modest increase in housing units that provide opportunities for existing and new residents while maintaining the character of the neighborhood. With that Stanford recommends approval of this proposed rezoning case number 2020 1i00202 based on the finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. We will start with Tyler Somers. Tyler.
Speaker 2: Mother.
Speaker 0: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Next speaker is Ana de Monaco joining us online. Can you hear me? And I. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Hi. I just wanted to speak quickly in.
Speaker 0: Support of this. I saw this happening in other neighborhoods and. As a resident who also had grandparents who grew up in the same area. I hear these competing.
Speaker 5: Competing concerns about lack of.
Speaker 0: Affordable.
Speaker 5: Housing, as well as the neighborhoods changing too much and too quickly. And I feel like this is.
Speaker 0: A great way.
Speaker 5: To address.
Speaker 0: And both where you can add additional housing. But you don't have to change the neighborhood much at all. And I also had.
Speaker 5: Some neighbors who indicated.
Speaker 0: They wished they had a way to and.
Speaker 5: To have an ADU for aging.
Speaker 0: Parents. And so would be wonderful to be able to have grandparents move in the neighborhood. A lot of families struggle with this.
Speaker 5: And I would love for my neighbors to have that as an option.
Speaker 0: So just wanted to come and voice my support. There is also online, Jenna Farley. Hi, everybody.
Speaker 5: Just want to make sure you can hear me.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. I've been having trouble with my microphone. Hi. My name is Jenna Farley.
Speaker 5: I also live in the neighborhood here at Regis in Regis University at 50th and UCLA. I have lived here for ten years, but I have been in the North Denver neighborhood for.
Speaker 0: I'm a sixth generation.
Speaker 5: Homeowner in North Denver. And so there's a lot of pride here.
Speaker 0: So I have been in this area for a long time. I also am.
Speaker 5: Here to speak on my support for adults in our neighborhood.
Speaker 0: I have spent the last year really working very closely.
Speaker 5: With an organization.
Speaker 0: To move people from the streets into stable housing. And I can tell you that there is not enough housing in Denver for anyone.
Speaker 5: And so I know that abuse in our neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Are likely not the answer to homelessness. I also don't.
Speaker 5: Think that there is any one single answer to our housing crisis.
Speaker 0: But I do believe that Adus are one. And so I am supportive of us building higher density housing.
Speaker 5: Housing opportunities in our own neighborhoods.
Speaker 0: And I think that the rezoning.
Speaker 5: For a to use in the Regis neighborhood is a good idea.
Speaker 0: Thank you. GIR is online. Candice Clark. I also do a audio check. So I come across clearly. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Well, thank you for District one and all the work they've done and for the council for bringing this up. I, too, am in support. I'm a homeowner in the Berkeley Regis neighborhood and now a little bit of a late bloomer as a homeowner. So as a single person household, I do look at how do I sustain living in this.
Speaker 5: House as I, you know.
Speaker 0: Age, age, out in in in the area. I'm five generations from North Denver. I'm proud of our area. And just all look, you know, just in support and looking for ways to support my community and make it affordable to continue to live there. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker is online, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Members of council acting at home. So in Paris and I represent for Blackstar at the moment for self defense, positive action camera, for social change as well as the party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, Frontline Black knows and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight as the previous speakers have already spoken. So affordability is much needed in this city and in this town. And this neighborhood has been rapidly gentrified. So. To see that the city is going to be putting affordable housing in an area that is underground. Gentrification is a good idea. So I'm there for support. I supported 80 use when I ran for City Council. At-Large, a large 29.
Speaker 0: Audio. Your connection froze if you want to turn off your video.
Speaker 1: I'm done.
Speaker 0: That connection that connects many, many questions from members of Council and Council. Bill 20 20477. Okay. Seeing that public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2477. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President. First and foremost, I'd like to thank Naomi Grendon for my office for taking on such important land use roles in northwest Denver. I remember sitting down with her in 2019 and charting a path, and I don't think that neither one of us had charting the path of rezoning all of northwest Denver to allow accessory dwelling units within our game plan. And we quickly pivoted when the community came to us. So thank you so much, Naomi, for your steadfast leadership and work getting us here to this tonight with Regis. As we all know up here in Blueprint Denver, when it was adopted in 2019, it called out the need to rezone neighborhoods by neighborhoods, not one off rezoning. So I took that seriously. And this will be the third rezoning of a neighborhood that I brought forward. I understand that there are some concerns about the how accessory dwelling units are added to neighborhoods. And as I was working on rezoning neighborhood by neighborhood, I went to the executive director, Laura already and talked to her about my concerns. And therefore we have an accessory dwelling unit task force that is currently being worked on. We have two of our council members, council member Black and Councilmember Herndon currently sit on that task force and they're going to talk about parking. They're going to talk about adaptive reuse as I have an older neighborhood that has older houses and so I'd like them to be adaptively reused. So thank you to CPD for pivoting as we are rezoning all of these neighborhoods. I believe this meets all of the criteria, so I would ask all my council support up here and thank you to District one for your belief in my leadership on such important land use issues. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roco and Council Bill 20 20477.
Speaker 2: Sandoval.
Speaker 4: AI.
Speaker 2: Sawyer.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Black.
Speaker 0: AI.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca. I Clark. Flynn. I Gilmore. Herndon High.
Speaker 3: Haynes High.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Can each I Ortega. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill 20 2-0477 has passed. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put council bill 20 2-0585 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in the Regis Neighborhood.
Approves a legislative map amendment to rezone multiple properties from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for accessory dwelling units), located in the Regis Neighborhood in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07182022_22-0586
|
Speaker 0: 12 days. Cancel the 22 days. 0585 has passed. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0586 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0586 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20586 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Brad Johnson, principal city planner with Community Planning and Development. Bringing you today, a rezoning request for 225 East Bay Avenue from u t u v to u032g in u three. U of three. This is in Council District seven in the spear neighborhood. And again, the request is for general urban neighborhood, context, multi-unit with a three storey maximum height or 40 feet. This would allow multiple dwelling going units on the lot more than two as would be allowed under the baseline zoning. Building forms allowed would be urban house duplex, the garden court townhouse and apartment forms. And the applicant does. The Swiss have retained the Euro three overlay, which is use overlay, which is a historic structures use overlay and use overlay. If the building on the site was landmark, that use overlay would allow additional flexibility for a few nonresidential uses. Which are art studio office, non-medical, non dental and bed and breakfast. However, this this building is not landmarked. So for now anyway, this use of would not apply. If it were to be landmarked in the future, it could come into play. And this proposal is intended to facilitate re-use of the structure from from a religious institutional use to to be adapted to adaptively reuse for residential units. So just zooming in on this site a little bit more right here at the corner of Bad and Grant. The lot itself is 94, 95 feet wide, more or less along Green Street. That frontage and the lot areas just over a quarter acre at 12,000 square feet. Here. You see the existing zoning on the site that drew me to you, too, and some of the other areas around it on that block as well. And then the surrounding zoning, you see a lot more that G in Q3, which is what's what's requested here. The existing land uses both on the site and in the vicinity. So you see a wide variety of of different uses. The majority of them are single unit and two unit residential. But if you look along that Ad Avenue corridor, you see quite, quite a variety there. Here are some photos. First at the bottom bottom middle of this page are the site itself. So there you see the former Faith Center Building. It's on the site. Now, that would be the is intended to be adaptively reuse and to the left and right you see some of the immediately surrounding buildings of the subject site. I want to mention that the applicant has the senior staff report up and has entered into a ten year non demolition agreement for the building to maintain it in place at least over the next ten years. And the historic timber. This this rezoning followed all the procedural requirements of the zoning code in terms of noticing the rezoning and posting on the site and so on. In a public hearing tonight. In terms of outreach, we received four letters of support from members of the public, generally supportive of re-use with residential on the site, but also excited about the opportunity for this building to be maintained in place. We did receive one letter voicing concerns about parking impacts in terms of demand that this might generate relative to the when compared to the existing use. And we saw a couple of comments like that at the planning board as well. We haven't received any official or no comments on this. So moving to the criteria is criteria, starting with consistency with adopted plans. We did find that this rezoning would mean numerous goals, objectives and strategies in Plan 2040, just a couple of which are flagged here and others identified in the staff report. In terms of blueprint. Denver The future neighborhood context is urban, so that calls for small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas that are typically embedded in one and two unit residential areas and buildings that are of a large scale and closer to the street. You'll notice on this map that this site is the context that's called for is urban design district. That's being requested is general urban. See, it's right on the edge there of a general urban designation. So given that and what's being proposed here, blueprint Denver anticipates as a citywide plan that we're not going to map those boundaries. Perfect. And this is a case where blueprint ever provides guidance. There's some flexibility could be shown in a case like this where you have a property that's right on the edge of one of those boundaries, especially if it meets goals that blueprint. Denver And so more on that in a couple of slides. Feature place type is low residential as predominantly single unit and two unit uses on smaller lots. Although you see this language kind of at the bottom of this paragraph says that vacant institutional uses on corner or select sites may be appropriate locations to introduce additional residential density . So this will qualify as that type of vacant institutional use. Future street type is local and designated which blueprint? Denver says that for that type of that street type, there could be a variety of different land uses and urban farms adjacent to that that type of street. And so given that flexibility, we did find that this rezoning would be consistent with future street type. Growth area strategy is all other areas of the city, which calls for 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing on the properties that are designated as all other areas of the city through 2040. Given that this rezoning would allow additional resident residential units on the site, it would allow for some moderate increase in housing in the city, and therefore we define it to be consistent with growth area strategy. So I talk about how the future context didn't perfectly aligned, but that blueprint does allow flexibility in that regard, especially if the rezoning would meet other goals of the city and that are in Blueprint Denver. And so these are a few pieces of policy language from Blueprint Denver that Carla called for facilitating compatible redevelopment of institutional sites like this, calls for additional land use flexibility in that cases and in those types of cases and actually calls out redevelopment. This would be a reuse of the site, but it goes even stronger than that and calls out a redevelopment of the site as being potentially appropriate. We have one area plan, which is the West Washington Park neighborhood plan. That's a pretty old one from 91. A lot of the focus of that plan is on maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood, which this rezoning would. There is some language that we thought was relevant, particularly relevant, which is this land use policy here, which calls for maintaining and improving historic and architecturally significant structures which we thought this would would fall into that category. So we did find this rezoning to be consistent with this adopted area plan. We also found that the rezoning would result in uniform district regulations and further public health and safety and welfare of the community through implementation of our adopted plans and those policies I just shared with you. Justifying circumstances for this one again pointing to the to that language in blueprint deliver about flexibility on institutionally institutional sites for redevelopment or in this case for and supporting that type of flexibility to infuse additional units in a compatible way. We felt that it did meet that justifying circumstance. And then finally, we did find that this rezoning would be consistent with a neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. And so with all of that, we do recommend approval finding of review criteria. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening in person to Travis Mahfouz. For the record, if you could give us your name and city of residents.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My name's Travis Michael Foose, the city of Denver resident, the owner of this property and the applicant. And we're excited. I'm here with my development partner, Yani Bellis. We're excited to present another opportunity for the city of Denver to adaptively reuse some of our historic properties, do them in a way that the neighborhoods are excited about and can maintain their character and also enable future community members to participate and enjoy architecture and character in the neighborhoods that make Denver so unique. So thank you for your support and want to persuade planning support supporters. Well, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is online, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Many, many members of council. Those watching at home I name is just in the staff here and I'm up for Blackstone actionable self defense positive actually for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council Hotline, Black News and I will be the next November 2023. Initially, I was against this rezoning. I thought it was going to be more gentrification as usual. But seeing from the presentation, it's not, Hey, I'm in support of this rezoning tonight. It meets all five of the criteria. So yeah. Should pass with. No problem. Thank you. I have less night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker also online, Michael Flowers.
Speaker 1: All right. My name is Michael Flowers, and I'm director of Preservation Action at Historic Denver 523, nonprofit dedicated to preserving Denver's unique identity, cultural landmarks and workplaces. Our offices are located at 1420 North Ogden Street in the old Everson School. Historic. Denver is fully in favor of the zoning change. The church was built in 1911 as the second Church of Christ Scientists and later was run by the Spiritual Assembly of the Beehive, Denver, for a number of years before it came up for sale with an uncertain future. The building is a great example of the classical revival style, and the current owners are dedicated to preserving the structure while adapting it into housing to show that commitment. Mr. McAfee has entered a ten year restrictive covenant and non demolition agreement with historic. Denver is also a proven and proven steward of the historic buildings. The Patterson Mansion, a Denver landmark, and Capitol Hill is a prime example. Adaptive reuse projects like this year, buildings a new life, ensuring that they will be around for years to come. The zoning changes are critical. Allman's project will preserve a piece of Denver's history. Now new housing units to the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and I hope you will vote in favor of the zoning change. I'm also available to answer any questions about the covenant, if there are any things.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker online is Gregory Holman.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak now. My name is Greg Home. I've lived in West Wash Park for 33 years.
Speaker 3: In order for neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: To meet the housing needs of people at various levels of income, at various stages of life, a variety of housing types and sizes is essential. This project will provide a moderate cost option for people who want to live in the West Coast Park neighborhood but can't afford the high cost of a single family home across the island . To the west are numerous parcels zoned Jimmy 303 and there are numerous other similar apartment buildings along are to the east in the Speer neighborhood. 225 is bad is two blocks from bus lines on Lincoln and Broadway, less than a mile from the Alameda Light rail station. Line residents who use transit to commute to work and shopping project said adaptive reuse of a former church building as churches has declined. Adapting former churches to multi-family use is an excellent way to respond to a current housing shortage. For Denver to thrive and continue to attract talent, talented people to move here. Denver needs an explosion in housing construction of various types. Sizing cost in every neighborhood throughout the city is the only way to respond to the housing crisis. I'm glad that staff supports this project and it's great to hear positive comments from other speakers. I said City Council approved this project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on 20 2-0586. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Travis, can I ask you to come up and I'm sorry, I am not recalling the name of the gentleman from historic Denver if he might be available also. Why a tenure non demolition agreement as opposed to a permanent conservation easement that would protect the building it since it's so very important to the to the neighborhood and to to you and your prior efforts as well. Sure. Thank you. And it's a good question. It was a question we received at a previous meeting and from the neighborhood as well. So I'm happy to address that. And also with Michael Flowers helping me from the start Denver standpoint. Our goal is as a development team is to preserve this property. We wanted to enter into agreement with historic Denver that showed that commitment and also enable us time to let the vision that this property will evolve and to evolve and come to fruition. There's no magic recipe in this ten year figure. And the idea is that as that time goes by, there'll be significant investment into this property with a successful rezoning. If that is how we are successful today, it will be significant capital invested into the interior of this property. The exterior will be very minimally, if at all worked on. And so the idea was to provide the time for the development team to put the whole picture together after we have the successful rezoning, but also show the forthcoming commitment to the city, to the neighborhood, to historic Denver, that our intent is to maintain the integrity of this building for for forever, not just for ten years, not just for ten years. Okay. Michael, do you have anything to add to that? Michael have anything.
Speaker 1: That Travis said? Sorry. I don't know what that was. I'll just second everything that Travis said. And, you know, ten years is typically long enough in a development cycle, you know, to allow for the project to be completed. And we just wanted it to be, you know, protection and control in place to ensure that, you know, immediately after the zoning change that there was protection in place, you know, and especially during the timeline of the project. We've worked with Travis before, and, you know, we think it's going to be a great project. And so we thought ten years would be long enough, you know, that we could control in the future for permanent protection. But I think for right now that the ten years shows a great commitment on Travis's part, and we're happy to continue working with him if he wants to work with us.
Speaker 3: Michael I looked through I didn't read closely the entire ten year agreement, but I think lamb's through. It doesn't give historic Denver any leverage or any oversight of any exterior modifications or alterations.
Speaker 1: Now this is this is just a non demolition agreement. So this is not, you know, like our easements and other documents that we have, it's just so that the property cannot be demolished.
Speaker 3: Okay. Well, it says if the owner promises no demolition or a significant alterations, I believe that that's going to speak to that premise. Sure. And also to the intent of designating this as a historic structure going forward. There's a number of implications that are involved in that process, all of which we're exploring as preservationists and as a successful track record throughout Denver of identifying properties that have the potential to work themselves into the next cycle of development. You know, the idea is that the exterior of the church will be maintained. There will be a roof. There'll be some roof work because of complying with modern code and the like. But the architectural detail is exquisite on this building, and we plan to really use that as the base for the whole development. We're even going to be preserving the majority of the second floor of this building, incorporating those into the interior of the units , much as we have in this beautiful building. And so the the exterior of this building will be as minimally impacted as possible to enable its next purpose as a residence. Thank you. Does the use overlay through the historic use overlay? Does that have any power or any leverage in it to require any city review of any alterations? Or is it simply a a use overlay that allows. Nonresidential uses in historic buildings is the latter. However, for it to even apply, the structure would have to be designated. And so all of the things that keeping infrastructure, being landmarked, including review under our LPC process and so on, would be there. If that your theory was applying, right?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Fire.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council 1220 2-0586 Council Member Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council President. This is a really, really special building in the neighborhood, and I'm just thrilled that this group came together. You know, I remember the first time we sat down, just there's so much excitement and passion to preserve it. Right. And that's that is often not we're especially in this neighborhood where we've had very a ton of contentious ones where, you know, there is a hostile attempt to to preserve something that somebody else wants to just tear down. And this was the opposite. This was, you know, this ownership group coming in saying, hey, we want to preserve this. We want to find a way to work the zoning, because the zoning is these are really hard to preserve. But we want to change the zoning to be able to preserve this structure and then to bring residential in line with the community. And, you know, I just want to say thank you for all the time you spent with a very smart and very engaged community that does this a lot of times. And I know, you know, put you through the ringer as you guys were working through this. But to continue at it, to work with them, you know, and to share that excitement for preservation with some folks who really, really care about preservation, this would would just be a heartbreaker to lose a structure like this and to hear the plans of how to give it a whole new life for decades and decades to come is really exciting. So I just want to say thank you. And I think that it's special that we still have owners and people willing to come forward and spend time and money investing what is in not an easy project. This isn't just, hey, buy something, tear down and build, you know, another 3 to 5 stories that looks just like everything else. This is unique. It is special. It's going to be a really, you know, just one of a kind, kind of place to live. And so I appreciate all the hard work working with the neighborhood, working on what is a zone district that fits that really meets these criteria, but also meets this goal of of preservation and reuse and to bring it all together here. So I think as illustrated by staff, through your hard work, this clearly meets all the criteria. I'm happy to support it. Today, I want to say thank you for bringing this forward, and I would encourage my colleagues to support this tonight as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Tim Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say I also recognize how hard it is to keep the historic structures. I have several in my council district and I've used the same very process and it creates a win win. It allows you to adaptively reuse the building and update windows and update other things that might be challenging if it was deemed historic currently right now, but allows you to build density where we need it and also bring a different type of housing stock that is lacking in Denver. So just want to say that I absolutely support this type of use and this type of creativity. I know it's not easy and I look forward to when they may be voting on the designation of it because it has tax credits that happened also in my council district. Once you've gone through this process, then coming back with the designation so that you as the owner can benefit from those historic tax credits. So thank you for being creative and helping solve some of the solutions of historic preservation and housing at the same time. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council President. I'm done. Some of the rescind of all kind of said much of what I wanted to say and that we need more people like you who are willing to take properties that are distinctive and and preserve them and and work within the structure to make it something that works today but but celebrates where Denver has come from. You've mentioned the Paterson so I reached out Paterson is in my district in Denver is perfect ten and we I don't know if the council recalls but we actually went through a rezoning of the Paterson not too long ago. So while I was it was fun to learn a bit about your property today. I've been inside of Paterson lots of times and watched its journey as it becomes more accessible to people in, you know, who use wheelchairs like I do. But also it is it is another example of an adaptive reuse. So thank you for. For having a track record of taking great properties and making them current as well. So thank you. Thank you, President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call and Council Bill 20 2-0586.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 3: I. When I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. I like Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I saw your eye blank. I see tobacco. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill 20 20586 has passed a preaent recess announcement. I'd like to use a little bit of privilege here real quick and say a few words about one of our City Council family members who's going to be moving on to another adventure, Zacharias Meyer, whose last day will be this Friday, July 22nd.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 225 East Bayaud Avenue in Speer.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-TU-B2, UO-3 to G-MU-3, UO-3 (urban two-unit to general, multi-unit), located at 225 East Bayaud Avenue in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-24-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06272022_22-0709
|
Speaker 0: 12 ays Council Resolution 20 2-706 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? And wanted to let members in the chambers here know that we've opened up our overflow meeting room. It's directly as you walk out these doors, I believe we're using for 32. It's to the right. And so if you feel more comfortable with a bit more space, we have our overflow open. And I would also ask any members of the public who are standing against the back wall. We would ask that you find a location to sit for our fire code. Thank you, councilmember kenny. We have Bill 709. Please go ahead with your comments.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President. Sometimes history is really exciting, like when the avalanche win the Stanley Cup and it's on the front page of every paper and there's a picture of it. But sometimes history unfolds over very long periods of time. I did a whole review of history, how the city went from zero local dollars for affordable housing in 2011 to at least $30 million a year today and three quarters of $1,000,000,000 by 2030. That was over 11 years. You had to really be paying attention to understand history. And sometimes history is like even less in the under the radar or more under the radar and harder to track. And so this very exciting, historic bill is creating Denver's first ever special revenue fund for transportation and mobility. It's actually not creating it. It already existed as of a few months back, but it's actually cementing in it the city's commitment to put dollars in every year. So just check with me here. There has never been a dedicated source of funding for transportation mobility in the city's history. We thought that was something the federal government funded. Oops, not really. Maybe a little bit the state government. So we increasingly as a city, whether it's affordable housing, whether it's transportation, whether it's climate, we have had to step up and fill these gaps. And over the course of several years, a group of community advocates from Gender Streets, Partnership, Bicycle, Colorado, Colorado Public Interest Research Group and other really dedicated advocates kept coming to council members like Councilman Clark and Councilwoman Black and I saying we need dedicated revenue for safety of mobility and for climate transit, gets people out of cars. It is a climate saver. Bikes and PEDs have no impact on the climate at all. So every mobility change we make is good for our climate, but we are not funding it. And so so we created this fund with two sources incremental increase in the cost of parking on our streets. Right. Those parked cars have an impact on our climate, and now they're mitigating some of that impact by investing in this fund. And secondly, some of the fees that are fines that are paid for people who park in bike lanes and things like that. So those two sources under this language that we're putting in this bill today are committing our city to putting those incremental dollars into this fund each year to be doing the right thing for climate and doing the right thing for safety in our community and options for people. And so it's $16 million. It's a start. It is something we need to continue to invest in and grow just like we grew the housing fund over those 11 years. I hope 11 years from now we're talking about three quarters of $1,000,000,000 here, too. That'll be up to the next generation of council members. But in case you missed it, it's the Stanley Cup of Transportation and Mobility for where we are today. So I'm really excited. Nobody's called it out. It's a pretty tortured analogy, but thanks for entertaining me tonight. I'm excited and it's going to be in our consent agenda, but y'all should know about it. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilmember can teach your passion is almost equivalent to the avalanche winning the Stanley Cup. But just as important, if not more so, I will I will venture. So thank you for that. And that concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1291, Series of 2021 concerning the “Transportation and Mobility” Special Revenue Fund.
Amends Ordinance 21-0291 creating the Transportation and Mobility Special Revenue Fund to expand allowable revenue received into the fund and memorialize certain intended revenue sources for the fund. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-14-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06272022_22-0685
|
Speaker 0: Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. We're going to go ahead and get started here first with council members sharing amendments that they may have to the bill, and then we'll go to the staff report. Council Member State Abarca, will you please go ahead with your comments?
Speaker 4: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, we can hear you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. It is my intent to offer an amendment tonight to this item that automatically rebates people living in.
Speaker 6: A specific.
Speaker 4: Type of nest neighborhood based on our 2016 gentrification study, so that folks who are in those neighborhoods do not have to jump through any eligibility testing, requirement hoops. We know that this is a big barrier to people accessing our different resources in the city, specifically rebates, for example, with property tax rebates. We know that eligibility testing is a barrier many people don't overcome to absorb the benefits of those rebates. And so what this would do is it would take the information that we provided that we paid for in our 2016 study about neighborhood change and income attributes of households in our neighborhoods. And it would. Automatically give those folks a credit on their trash bills simply because we already know the data based on those 20 2013, I believe, was the latest data sets, those data sets. And that is what my amendment would do tonight.
Speaker 0: Did you have something additional council member say to Baca to add?
Speaker 4: No, that's that's the gist of them.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, please go ahead with your comments.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. It is my intent tonight to offer a technical amendment to this item that doesn't change anything. There is a reporting requirement for the volume based draft proposal. My technical amendment will codify it, so it will put it in the code. There's no misunderstanding that that is required. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Flynn, please go ahead with your comments.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President, I. I have the intent of offering an amendment tonight that would change the effective date from next January to October to push it back to October 23. After hearing the data, the input from Doddy at the committee a few weeks ago about the vacancy, the high vacancy rate and the inability of the solid waste crew not through no fault of their own, by the way, very hard working crew, but their inability to meet the current schedule that the ambitious addition of weekly recycling that requires 22 additional operators in addition to trying to make up a 28% vacancy when we've only managed to hire 7% in the last five months is an obstacle to effectively starting this program and could, in my view, cause it to fall on its face and be the source of many, many more complaints than we already get about the existing program. I don't support the fee at all in any case, but if it were to pass, I would want to see it succeed. And I believe this is a necessary delay so that solid waste can staff up to a close to 100%. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Ortega, please go ahead with your comments. Thank you, Madam President. I intend to bring an amendment forward tonight. And this is an amendment that was discussed last week as a compromise to my compromise that did not pass. And this would basically require that anything above 5% that is being recommended as a fee would have to come to the city council for approval. So that's the essence of what that would do. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 22, Dash 0685 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. I move that council bill 22 685 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 22, Dash 685 is open. Speakers may offer comments on the item directly or as I think we may see, speakers may offer comments on the item directly or as well on the attended amendment. The council member spoke about and before we dove into the speakers, may we please have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening, council president. Good evening. Members of council and the public listening in here today. My name is Adam Phipps. I'm the executive director for Denver's Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Before I jump in, I want to take a quick minute just to thank a members of council here. This is our fifth opportunity to present this proposal to you in the last couple of months. And in that couple of months, we've received an incredible amount of good feedback, suggestions, ideas, and working with our partners here on the dais. We've worked to an ordinance tonight that I believe will successfully leave Dottie to a much greater diversion right here in the immediate future. So thank you for that. Secondly, I want to remind everybody that this is not something that came to be without a lot of attention. We started the community outreach, the public engagement process over 20 years ago around what we wanted to do with a volume based trash pricing system for the city and county of Denver. A lot of public outreach, a lot of great ideas, a lot of good commentary. And I appreciate that thoughtful process. Thirdly, I want to recognize that for ten, four, nine out of the past ten years, this council body has identified that solid waste management and increasing our diversion rate as a priority for the city and county of Denver. Tonight, I'm excited for that to be in front of you for a final vote. With that, I'm going to bring up my project manager for this effort, Jessica Holley, to walk you through the staff report.
Speaker 6: Hi, everyone. Jessica Lolly, Daddy's project manager for this program. Thanks, Adam, for the introduction. So I'd like to start off by saying that our collective commitment to the environment is having an impact. Since we started tracking our greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. We've seen improvements in the commercial building sector in transportation, but we've actually seen 0% decrease in our emissions from waste over the last 15 years. The city has a sustainability plan. It's over a decade old as a solid waste master plan from 2010, recently renewed. And all of those things call for reducing how much we send to the landfill, which for these customers, the hundred 80,000 single family homes and apartments of seven units, we send about 180,000 tons the landfill each year. The city recently updated its emissions reduction reduction goal to align more with climate science, saying that we are aiming to reduce our emissions by 100% by 2040, and that includes waste, because waste truly does have an impact on those emissions. It's not just what comes off of the landfill, but it's also everything that it took to extract those resources, transport them, you know, the whole production process, transporting them again. And then if it's unfortunate enough to end up in the landfill, it is emitting greenhouse gases from there as well. So waste does matter. But those emissions for waste from waste are something that we can control. We can and should take action on them. High or low diversion rates are a proxy for how seriously cities take the issue of climate change. Our low diversion rate, how much we recycling campus, does not reflect Denver's commitment to this issue. It actually harms our our green reputation. Our customers need the tools, the infrastructure, the expanded services to put this commitment into action. So where does Gunvor stand with its waste? As I've said before, our residential waste diversion rate is at 26%. Comparing that to the national average of 34%, we're doing we're much lower than our comparable cities. So everything every city that you see on this screen are cities who are equivalent to Denver and also do not include construction and demolition diversion in their diversion rates. So volume based pricing is a nationally recognized, successful strategy at getting residents to increase their recycling and composting. So why is it specifically going to work for Denver? We've seen it work for other cities, so mainly because Denver needs to drive behavior change for one, unlike many residents in Denver. Solid Waste Management Services do not pay a direct fee for their trash. There's no connection for them between how much trash they generate, what it costs to provide our services, and the cost of that has to the environment on top of that. Our compost program is optional and fee based and therefore we are not incentivizing our residents to do the right thing or disincentivizing them. Secondly, like I said, Denver's diversion rate is at 26%. That number has only increased 1 to 2% over the last 20 years. But when we look at an average trash cart in Denver, 50% of what's going into that is compostable material. It's all of your yard debris with their grass and your leaves. It's all of your food waste. And that content is significant because that's what it takes to increase diversion. For Denver, we want to give the customers that, you know, feel burdened or feel a barrier with our current fee based system, the infrastructure that they need to do the right thing. Thirdly, compost takes direct action at fighting climate change. Not only are we removing food from the landfill where it emits methane, we're actually finished. Compost can be applied to parks, gardens, agricultural land, and it sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, increases water retention in the soil, and it just improves overall soil health. So I've been speaking to our customers, the 180,000 homes, and I just wanted to point out that the commercial sector is doing better than us. As far as recycling and composting goes, they're at a 37% diversion rate as opposed to our 26%, and that's not including construction and demolition debris. So these are the items that I want to highlight in our proposed ordinance, removing the fee for compost service, replacing it with the volume based service fee, establishing that the revenue that we earn from this program can only be used to provide the service. We're adding language to require Dotti to provide an affordability program in the form of an instant rebate and then also adding language surrounding compliance. How does this look for a Denver resident? Well, basically, the smallest trash card costs the least. Vermont, the largest trash cart cost the most per month. And the recycling compost carts will be included at no additional cost. So really, the price of the trash cart incentivizes maximizing your use of your recycling your cycling compost carts. I also want to make note that these are the lowest rates in the Denver metro area and also some of the lowest rates across the country. These are the services that are included in those rates. So something that our residents and all of you I think are really excited for is weekly recycling. We will see about a 2000, a little over 2000 tons per year increase in recycling with weekly recycling to capture the excess cardboard that we're seeing overflow into the trash with their current biweekly collection. We'll also be expanding compost service to all of our customers. So another 150,000 homes and then everything else on the screen are services that solid waste already provides. An important piece of this is the affordability program, which is an instant rebate provided in partnership with Denver Human Services. Eligibility will be based on income and number of people in the household, so residents will be eligible for 50, 75 or 100% off, depending on where they fall on that scale. These applications will be available prior to rollout so that the first invoice that residents receive reflects what they can pay. And then we are also adding some efficiencies with Denver Human Services programs where they're able to auto enroll customers into our program based on information that they already know from other local programs. So I'm going to speak to the education and outreach for this does pass. Salaries will be hiring a new program manager to manage the $3.8 million annual education budget for this program. There will be multiple multilingual education pieces on how to recycle and compost video, digital print card signage, truck signs. There will be paid partnerships with community organizations who will be helping us do outreach on recycling and composting, but also on the expanded services and new fee. There will be direct, multilingual customer education on billing services rebate program, including print and digital communications. There will also be increased information for compost customers on how to proposed and reduce contamination. We will be participating in many community events, whether that's through our community based orgs or asking ourselves. And then throughout all of these things, we will be promoting the rebate program and assisting residents with applications. And that's the end of my presentation.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the presentation. We have 33 individuals signed up to speak this evening. We have one hour as a courtesy public hearing. So I would ask that folks withhold their applause because that's going to take time from other speakers, because as soon as the first speaker starts, I begin timing. And we have 60 Minutes allocated for the courtesy public hearing, and then we'll go into questions from members of council on this. And then as you heard prior to this presentation, we have four different amendments to the bill that we also have to make. And so we want folks to also know that you have 3 minutes. But if for whatever reason you don't feel like you need to use your full 3 minutes, please see that to the next speaker because then that will allow us to hear from more folks. And so we are going to go ahead and get started with our first speaker, and that is Kevin MATTHEWS in chambers here. We've got Kevin MATTHEWS after Kevin MATTHEWS, Margaret, at ten zero, followed by Brian Lomax. Go ahead, please, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I am speaking as a member of 350 Denver this evening, and I am a resident of Congress Park. And speaking in favor of the expanded waste services measure this evening and wanted to point out that 350 said in a letter a few weeks ago supporting this measure. The first time I heard about this proposal was four years ago, and I know some people have been working on it a lot longer than that. I hope that a few of you recognize the problem with that timeline. According to the IPCC, we need to cut emissions in half by 2030. When it comes to climate justice. For every million metric tons of organic waste that decomposes, 469 metric tons of greenhouse gases are released. Composting can reduce those emissions by more than 50%. The potential for municipal composting can remove 1.4 gigatons of emissions by 2050, which is like taking over 3 million gas powered cars off the road. For my own part, my household has already enrolled in the home composting program, which we pay the yearly fee for, and I'll be very happy to have that here go towards trash instead of getting composting and recycling for free. Since we've joined the program, the amount of trash that we actually throw out is very small. The bag, a small bag a week. I know there are concerns about people not being able to navigate the proper program. I'm not that bright. I figured it out. I think the rest of the Denver residents can figure it out as well. I also know there's concerns about the cost of the program. Denver Homeowners have gained over $200 billion in equity in the last ten years and now have $400 billion of collective wealth. I think we can manage it in surveys. Even 80% of Denver ANC members, that bastion of progressive change, supported this policy. This may not be the most perfect policy as no policy ever is, but we cannot wait any longer. Please support this measure this evening.
Speaker 0: We can't.
Speaker 1: Wait. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Margaret. Attention.
Speaker 4: Excuse me.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll.
Speaker 0: That evening.
Speaker 1: Madam President.
Speaker 6: And members.
Speaker 1: Honorable members of Denver City Council.
Speaker 0: My name is Margaret Atencio.
Speaker 6: I live in Denver. I was born.
Speaker 0: In Denver 75 years ago. So I've.
Speaker 6: Seen a lot of changes.
Speaker 0: In this town. My my father was a city attorney, an.
Speaker 6: Assistant city attorney for 42 years.
Speaker 0: For Denver County. And for ten of those years, he was the counsel for city council. And my father used to say something to me. And each of my siblings, he said, Always live in Denver because as long as you live.
Speaker 4: In Denver, you.
Speaker 1: Will always have good water.
Speaker 0: And free trash pickup. And he he said that again and again over the years, and he meant it. I feel that installation of this program would be a dire.
Speaker 1: Dire.
Speaker 0: Hurt to many people, including myself. And I'm on Social Security. There are many people in Denver that are on Social Security or in the.
Speaker 1: Lower income.
Speaker 6: Brackets.
Speaker 1: Of this town.
Speaker 0: And I don't see many.
Speaker 1: Of them here at this point in.
Speaker 0: Time or people that are on Social Security. Basically.
Speaker 6: I. I am.
Speaker 4: Interested in.
Speaker 0: Sustainability. But believe me, I am I am more interested in human sustainability. Denver has always been a town with a heart, and we have been a.
Speaker 1: Good place to live.
Speaker 0: We've tried to do good over the years and as much as we can. We've got various things. But every time we've done wonderful things for our community, for life, like the zoo or the Botanic Gardens, we've taken votes and we voted those.
Speaker 1: Funds through.
Speaker 0: Agreements of all the.
Speaker 1: People, not a few people that say you will from now on.
Speaker 0: Be paying this.
Speaker 1: And this and this, no matter.
Speaker 6: If it takes if it comes during a period of economic.
Speaker 0: Problems that we have now with gasoline, with food, with baby formula, I want you to think about it. Think about it with your hearts as well as your economy and think sustainability. Think about human.
Speaker 1: Sustainability. And I would like to.
Speaker 0: Congratulate everybody here who is here for the St Patrick's Day parade. And thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Lohman, and then he will be followed by Rosario CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon to council members of the community. Everybody at home. My name is Brian Bouma. I'm a resident of Council District nine, owner operator of Cut the Plastic Environmental Litigation Solutions. And I represent Waste No More. Denver The complimentary citizen ballot initiative being voted on this November to bring recycling and composting to festivals, commercial properties of eight units or more corporations across the city and construction sites. The first thing I want to say is that I am very disappointed that this is a courtesy hearing when we charge our citizens money. We should have a full blown hearing and let everybody have the chance to speak. And I know that I don't stand alone in thinking that we should have more than an hour to discuss this as the public. But I'm going to make my answers really easy. Whether you're listening to the avalanche game on public radio or on the radio or in person at the arena, they talk about recycling and being responsible . When we go to festivals like Five Points Jazz Festival. Volunteers are already working to divert at that festival. This year, 75% of our consumed material to recycle and compost. Households are the worst offenders in our county. For those who should have access to having free recycling and composting and the education systems, not just by the city, but by the schools, by the corporations, by the citizen groups all across the board that to save our planet, we need to do better. As we see in our state legislature with an enhanced producer responsibility for manufacturers, composting and recycling is a reality. Styrofoam has been banned in the state in the next couple of years. We won't have any more of that nuisance product being sold in our stores. There might not be enough education happening. Councilman Flynn, I saw your post the other day and I'm glad that they included in the presentation. But as a society, we're learning and we might make a few years of not getting it 100% right. But we need to establish the infrastructure and the processes, just like waste. No more will be for 31 million consumers in Denver. We need the 190 roughly thousand houses to get on board and on track as well. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Rosario CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: Good evening, President and Honorable Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. And my name is obviously debacle. I live at 3570 West Evans Avenue in southwest Denver. I just want to share, you know, one kind of little indignity when I got the property tax bill. It would have been wonderful. It would have been very nice if the city had included notice that it intended to start charging fees for trash services, something that I've never had to worry about because it was included in the services provided by the city. And you know, I voted for all the bonds, everything that the city has ever asked. I have voted. And but there was no no this no mention. And I you know, in this meeting, they realize that it's the press. You the management has been trying to work on this matter for, what, ten years? It would have been a great courtesy for taxpayers to be told that things were changing. And, you know, I do my best to be a good neighbor. I live in a very busy intersection. I pick up the trash for the storm drain. And Kevin will tell you, I'm out there shoveling snow on both sidewalks and breaking up the ice so that cars don't lose traction. And so I unite with what Margaret was saying. You know, there are many of us who are on fixed incomes. Except for that, I still work part time as a union organizer. And the reason I worked as a union organizer is because I believe in treating people with respect and with dignity. My mother worked in the fields and I volunteered to organize forces that Travis when I was only 14. So I'll be 70 next year. And I am not stopping when I see that there is. Abuse in dignity and equality. Denver is going through a rapid gentrification process, and the demographics are changing fast. And so I don't know if it's calculated measures to drive seniors like myself who are working very hard to still live in Denver or people of color because five points. Swansea. And now, you know, in my neighborhood, I mean. We're beginning to feel like we're just getting in the way. My husband and I raised five children. So I understand the frustration of people with residential trash. But do you know how many diapers? One baby generates. I mean, there are things that perhaps I don't know. How many of you have babies? Have children. Babies generate a lot of trash.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's the time we have a lot of for each speaker. And so. Yeah.
Speaker 6: So, Holly, I just want to add that please consider that Denver is a great city, but these can have a very racist and a just.
Speaker 0: And we're going to have to move on. Thank you. Robert Bailey or Sara Taylor Ryman is our next speaker, followed by Robert Bailey. Just right here at the podium. There's a mic right there. So can you just speak normally ahead, please?
Speaker 6: Hi. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Taylor Ryman and I am a resident of District ten and a member of Denver's Sustainability Advisory Committee, a council on the Zero Waste Committee. But I'm only here speaking for myself. I'm also a public service professional, so I share your love for service. I first learned about pay as you throw systems in 2015 when I studied abroad in Hong Kong. My small group of students was tasked with studying the local waste issues and proposing something that might address them. Hong Kong at the time was facing some imminent landfill closures, and so the issue was rather pressing. But we ended up deciding to propose with pay as you go, and that's kind of was my introduction to it as an idea. Fast forward to today and writing these talking points and I decided to go back and Hong Kong actually just finally passed approval of the pay as you throw scheme. I don't know how much influence my little ragtag group of garbage gremlins had on that decision, as the political will was in a lot of flux and there was a lot of other issues there. But I digress. I thought it was really cool. I'd like to urge your support for expanded waste services for the following reasons. The service structure has proven successful in many communities. The fee schedule is lower than most, and it would be a great help towards meeting Denver's diversion goals. Some cite the equity issues, which I think are totally valid and how this would impact low income communities. And the plan does outline an affordability program that would of course adjust the fee based on your AM I, but that doesn't solve all of our problems. My greater concern, though, is how the equity issues with the current system and the fact that some people pay for services that they don't have access to and that high contributors to the landfill stream are essentially subsidized for their wastefulness. Since everybody pays through sales and property tax to fund our trash collection, we all don't get equal access. And people who throw out more garbage are, again, just being subsidized for for that and creating this program. And the fee structure would justify current discrepancies in who pays for trash collection and who gets the service. It would expand the services that we offer, equalize access, and provide accountability and incentives for high generators to reduce their garbage. I don't think education alone will be successful unless there's an incentive component. Plus, why spend more resources on educating people on how to divert their waste when some will not have the diversion options needed to act on education, on the education that we advance? Since trash is again currently paid the way it is, people don't think twice about throwing trash away, but away as a place and trash is a resource. It's a buried issue, pun intended, and creating a fee structure that incentivizes recycling and compost would make the issue of wastefulness more visible and an accessible matter and could drive positive behavior change. Make your point.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker in chambers is Robert Bailey, followed by Madeline Singer.
Speaker 1: Hello. Thank you for having me here today. I appreciate it very much. First of all, just to add a little bit of credibility, I've been composting and recycling every day. I've been filling up bins every day for 14 years. Bills from GFL. I believe GFL does some of the recycling sorting for Denver. My June bill here only $900. Only $900. It's a business. They want as much money, as much volume as they can get. They're in cooperation with the packaging industry. The more the better. Generally, we decide between more money or more green. It's generally one or the other. It's not both. Sometimes it's both, but generally not. Volume based trash service is is is a perfect example. Volume based trash service will have the exact opposite of green. The problem with recycling is that too much? There's too much trash. It makes no sense to have big diesel trucks pick up all this trash, take it to a sorting center, and then have big diesel tractors, put it into big diesel trucks and then take it to the landfill. This makes no sense. It's much less green to do it that way. It's much more green to take your trash directly to the landfill. This is trash, by the way. I know there's a recycle logo on this. The reason is, of course, because the recycle industry wants that recycle logo on there and it takes four times as much energy to recycle this as it does to not recycle it. Well, driving 40 miles is not more green to driving ten miles. It's more volume. There's plastic, there's glue, there's there's wax. Makes no sense. But see, the thing is, people are going to be putting this in the recycle bins and then we're going to be paying $30 million for GSL to sort that and then haul it to the landfill. Let's talk about the money for a second. Does everybody realize is this a typo? Is the Department of Transportation, are you guys still here? Is this what you guys give 20 cars in a row, a ticket? You are you you call a street street sweeping the streets. Don't get swept. You're financial predators. Is this is this real? Is this fine? $1,000 is if if you have profit in your recycle, is is this a misprint or is this real? Is it $1,000? Is it $1,000 or is this a misprint? Does everyone know that there's $1,000 fine from the Department of Transportation? If you have trash in your recycle, I guarantee you I can find you. Fill up a recycle, I'll find trash in every one of them. I just went out and took a picture of the first recycle bin. There's food waste in there, so there's $1,000 fine. And then right here, they will leave your house. If you don't pay the the Department of Transportation $1,000, they will leave your house. That's the money part of it. This is all about the money. It's a big money grab here. This is education and outreach. Okay. That should say propaganda. Okay. It's all about demonizing the landfill. Okay. I would recommend having a picnic at the landfill, but there are no problems with the landfill. The methane is captured. It's turned into electricity. Thank you very much for having me today. Appreciate it very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Madeleine Singer.
Speaker 4: Dear members of the Denver City Council. Good afternoon. My name is Madeline Singer, and.
Speaker 6: I'm a rising 10th grader at East High School. I strongly urge the passing of the Expanded.
Speaker 4: Waste Service proposal because the proposal encourages people to.
Speaker 6: Cycle and compost. There are.
Speaker 4: More than 220,000.
Speaker 6: Tons of waste from Denver homes each year, according to the Denver gov. Org. The proposal will not only make recycling and composting easier, but will force people to think about whether the item they're throwing away should be put in a certain bin. This will make dendrites more conscientious about climate change. I talked to my neighbor today and she was really enthusiastic about the proposal and would pay the fee but wants to know whether what she's recycling will actually be recycled and reused.
Speaker 4: The city plans to double the recycling and.
Speaker 6: Composting rates by 2032. When we hit that goal, it will be equivalent to removing the greenhouse.
Speaker 4: Effect of more than 600,000 cars from the atmosphere. Why would we not take the equivalent.
Speaker 6: Of 600000 hours worth.
Speaker 4: Of greenhouse gases.
Speaker 6: Out of the environment? This is a huge step toward decreasing climate change, but we can always do more. As a young person, I urge you to vote yes on the proposal because not only will it affect my generation, but future generations to come. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move virtually to Lawrence Murray.
Speaker 1: You. Me? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I agree. My name's Mark Murray, and I'm from Bob MONDELLO. And the subject I have here is trash. The OR volume based pricing is still a tax. Inflation is fed by the interest rate hikes as hikes, food hikes, rate hikes, medicine hikes and now I city which the hike up taxes would be nice if the city would consider the tax paying citizens more than inflation. It seems to be getting really attention already. The main reason I presume the city is looking at this is consideration for climate change. Yes, please consider that. So I have another idea to consider. The city wrap issuing building permits to mandate all new.
Speaker 3: Commercial construction.
Speaker 1: Of solar systems as well as all or all part of its energy generation and for all affordable new housing, the same requirement. That would be a significant positive impact on the environment, as well as providing savings for homeowners to avoid the new trash tax. You will not consider my suggestion. I will not support suggested tax hikes. On another note, GREGORY Let's return to the requirement for certain city employees, such as police officers and firefighters, to live in the city they serve in. Thank you very much. I'm then. You do.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is joining us in chambers, Muhammad Khan.
Speaker 6: Good evening, everybody. Council members and everybody who's here in support of expanded reserves. Please raise your hand. Thank you all for coming here. My name is Bob McCone. I work in District ten and I am right down the street, Beneke and Spear and I live on Sixth and Sheridan and I have.
Speaker 1: Another property in Clayton, which is on Bruce Randolph and Garfield.
Speaker 6: So I heard a lot of things here and I actually.
Speaker 1: Had a script that I was going to talk about, but I'm going to try answering some of the questions. So people talked about, you know, the trash used to be free in this city. Water used to be a fly parade in Denver until 1991.
Speaker 6: And now we pay for water by each thousands of gallons we use. And nobody backs an eye on that. Denver Water launched their light reduction program a couple of.
Speaker 1: Years ago and.
Speaker 7: They're even.
Speaker 1: After it dead. Their hype.
Speaker 6: Their rates and everybody was happy. I'm happy as a homeowner that owns two homes. I would rather pay $3 extra per thousand gallons of water versus being $18,000 per water line replacement. So this is and the other thing I heard here is, you know, we.
Speaker 1: Have grass here that we drive around.
Speaker 6: The country, momentum, glass open the recycling facility in Denver, and they don't have enough.
Speaker 1: Glass to run their facility. So they are bringing grass from.
Speaker 6: Outside the state to for further facility needs. Similarly, Ball Corporation is an aluminum can manufacturing company here in Golden, Colorado.
Speaker 1: That could that we use.
Speaker 6: The land that we use the aluminum that we are recycling. It's all about closing the loop, keeping things local. That's where all the pipes are coming from. I have also heard about contamination issues. Believe me, I live on Chagrin Boulevard. My trash bins are right on schedule Boulevard. There are people walking by and they throw this stuff in the trash bins. I have not seen contamination and I am the one who gets in my dumpsters.
Speaker 1: Every single day.
Speaker 6: Checking what is in there because I want to be responsible.
Speaker 1: Citizen. However.
Speaker 6: When I forgot to put the recycle.
Speaker 1: Bin out to the curb.
Speaker 6: One time, I had to wait for weeks in order to catch up on my recycling. There was recycling in my house.
Speaker 1: There was boxes.
Speaker 6: Full of recycling just because I wanted to do the right thing and not want to put it.
Speaker 1: In the trash. I think.
Speaker 6: Weekly recycling would be.
Speaker 1: Very helpful there.
Speaker 6: And last thing I want to talk about is the equity piece of this program. As a homeowner who owns two properties, it is not fair for me that my coworkers who live in a condo across the street pay for my free recycling and trash. It is only equitable that I paid $9 a month.
Speaker 1: It's not the most amount of fresh.
Speaker 6: And last thing I would say is I ran a case study.
Speaker 1: At our office.
Speaker 6: In two years. We went from zero recycling to 100% zero waste. It is doable. We just have to educate it and we.
Speaker 1: Have to provide the means. Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Where our next speaker is, Claire Harris joining us virtually. Can you hear.
Speaker 4: Me? Is my.
Speaker 0: Microphone working?
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes. Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. I want to agree with the man who mentioned having solar panels and all those things. Also, I agree with Kevin about adding another fee. I can afford it, but I live in a neighborhood where that's.
Speaker 0: A big expense.
Speaker 4: For my neighbors. But I have another point that I haven't heard so far.
Speaker 0: I'm opposed to it because.
Speaker 4: I'm going to read from what I wrote somewhere else. Most plastic recycling is dumped somewhere else.
Speaker 0: It's a.
Speaker 4: That's great. But what I read is.
Speaker 0: That most of that actually.
Speaker 4: Ends up in the ocean or in a foreign country. We don't really end up with recycling, producing, recycling. I think educating citizens about all the ways to divert, compost, reuse, etc., to prevent disposable of extra waste, that's something that's education. But also the biggest issue is to stop.
Speaker 0: Having so much plastic. At the source. So.
Speaker 4: To me, the goal would be less PAC. Doing more use of paper using actually recyclable.
Speaker 0: Plastic or.
Speaker 4: Taking. In fewer recyclable. A fairer place to contain insurers from restaurants. Bags. So. Working on the song verse. And there's a beginning of where plastic.
Speaker 0: Waste is.
Speaker 4: Rather than trying to get at that at the end of it, to find a way to use the waste or reuse it. This is not this is not efficient. The problem is we produce so, so darn much waste. I Denver. I love that we charge for plastic bags. The other walk out in Denver across the street from me. No charge but soap in a toy for a kid. Anyway, that. My point is that I think we need to start with education and then.
Speaker 0: With looking at the.
Speaker 4: Sources of plastic and packaging and try to work with that. That's that's a way bigger way to start working with plastic and the other aluminum waste, etc.. Can it work?
Speaker 0: Okay. I miss Harris. Were you finished with your comments? I saw that you turned your camera off, but I wanted. You had a few more moments. I am.
Speaker 4: I was finished. I just wanted those points.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Adam Meltzer. Followed by Nick Campion. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Evening. City Council names Adam Meltzer. I am in District six in Denver. I was in Councilman Cashman's, Earth Day remarks to the event. And even though I spoke to a handful of attendees about what neighborhood associations in Denver do in relation to our environment, I realize that the impact I would have talking to a dozen people at a sparsely populated neighborhood event is minimal compared to the power of the city council and elected officials have. I want to focus on three points here. The first is the faults of representative democracy. The second is the unwillingness of the middle class and our fellow Democrats to pay for their landfill waste. And the third is why we consistently make wrong decisions around action oriented climate issues. Yesterday I realized that there was a fault, a representative democracy system that we work in. People who have the loudest voices don't always have the best interests of the community in mind. They may just have the best interests of themselves. I am fully aware that as a middle class white male, I can afford to pay for the privilege of filling our landfills with trash, creating methane, exacerbating the climate crisis we live in. But I don't. My family of four fills less than a half of a 35 gallon roll up in. Of waste per week. The rest is recycling compost. People are unwilling to pay even if they can, unwilling to change their behavior because they don't have to. There's no financial disincentive. I hope that tonight when the council vote, you consider the impact of your decision. A no vote means that we keep delaying progress on climate issues around waste. A no vote means we keep accepting the status quo and the consequences of adding more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A no vote means we keep denying our impact as single families while redirecting blame at other sources. A yes vote and a yes vote means we're willing to stand up and take action to address the climate crisis at a cost that makes us uncomfortable. A yes vote means we show. Denver writes that the city council is willing to make tough decisions that will benefit their communities, even though the community might not see the benefit.
Speaker 3: I don't think that I'm a minority with my perspective.
Speaker 1: I think that I'm part of the silent majority. There are neighborhoods in Denver where my perspective is a minority, and I guess I would expect council members to vote to reflect the opinions of your constituents. If you didn't, you'd risk being not elected again. But here's the problem the endless circle of inaction, creating toothless policies, talking and talking, but not doing enough to address our climate crisis. Eventually, we'll all pay. But it won't be just about money.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Nick Champion.
Speaker 1: Hello, council members. My name is Nick Campion and I'm a member of the Sustainability Sustainability Advisory Council, Zero Waste Committee and Women's Sustainability. I'm a writer in District seven. And I support the expanded we services proposal. Tackling the climate crisis is a yes and situation. Yes, we need to reduce concrete waste, construction waste, and yes, we need to electrify our transportation. And yes, we need to improve our presidential waste diversion by providing free weekly recycling, encompassing or charging for trash, space and usage. Denver is the Mile High City and with a sad 26% waste diversion rate, are we trying to build mile high levels and low hanging fruit? Pretending that we have impacted. Sorry about any fruit that we can have impact on this rate through residential residents by implementing the Waste Services proposal. And yes, education can help increase the diversion rate, but changing the system is more effective than education for me. I tried years to convince my parents to compost. I sent them videos and websites about composting and local services that would provide them composting, but they never paid to sign up. Then I finally bought them a composting tumbler, and it was magic. And now they're composting advocates. They have less stinky trash and have healthy dirt for their gardening. There's pulling carbon out of that in the sphere. I was the cheese that cheese my parents to compost and helped the planet. Denver needs to change its residents mindsets too. How can I compost and recycle more? And how can I sell less trash and landfill? City Council Council needs to throw the broken system into the bin, probably preferably the composting recycling bin and become a city leader in composting recycling. In order for us to be the environmentally friendly city we want to be. We need every Denver resident in single family homes and multifamily buildings. Summer, a few unions, composting and recycling. In order to achieve this, we need to provide weekly recycling and composting for free. And I'm a renter. My taxes. Through my taxes, I pay for single family, house, trash and recycling, and I pay for trash recycling in my apartment. That's not a fair system. With the proposal a fix, this problem creates a new source of money in the general fund, which can be used to tackle other climate related issues in the entire city. I understand this can be an inconvenience for some residents, but are inconveniences such as large trash bins for free are a major reason why we are in this climate crisis. Cities such as Denver need to be on the front line of tackling climate change to set an example for other cities in Colorado, the country and the world. The climate crisis is getting worse and Denver can take immediate action now. Trees, greenhouse gas emissions through the expanded waste services proposal and I and many others in this room that support it. So to end my talk, can all the guests in the room like that support the expanded food service proposal?
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is me, Brzezinski, and it just says me is the first name. Okay. All right. So here's the key. If I.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Just because you are eating at work and.
Speaker 0: Your first name.
Speaker 7: Please. Katrina.
Speaker 0: Katrina. Okay, great. We'll correct that for the public record.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Hi, I'm Katrina. Courtesy. As we all know now from Denver, District 11 was.
Speaker 4: Days ago more. Thank you. I wanted to thank you specifically.
Speaker 7: For you and your team listening to our needs and making things.
Speaker 4: Happen that are in.
Speaker 7: Line with our community's requests and goals. I know today is just going to be the same. So while there are many things I'm super passionate about and of course, as I'm.
Speaker 4: Sure you can tell.
Speaker 7: The environmental impacts is one of them. I'm actually here to talk about our optics. And I got to tell you, they're not great. They are not great right now. We are thought as a relatively green city, and with that it's due to great marketing. And I believed it until I moved out to the suburbs. And there I saw our trash cans and they're overflowing with recycling. And I started to understand the numbers. We're lagging behind when it comes to our waste. Where I live, we are fully reliant on the Denver system to work for us. And I have to tell you, it isn't working. It is not working.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 7: You know, we need things delivered to us. Things are getting better. How important are these? Denver Thank you so much. Stacy Yay! Costco.
Speaker 4: But the overflowing recycling has.
Speaker 7: More to do with the fact that the system as it is, is not keeping up with our demand.
Speaker 4: And the easiest way to do this is to have our system fixed.
Speaker 7: And we're talking about fixing it today. Unfortunately, if we miss one day of recycling, our cans are overflowing and people are just going to pick throwing it out instead of holding on to it for an entire month and then hoping that the neighbor next door has room in their ben.
Speaker 4: To put it in.
Speaker 7: So that is going to really impact our current recycling percentages to double simply easily by just doubling the amount of times that it's picked up. And that brings us closer to the national average.
Speaker 4: Actually, it would probably just help us far.
Speaker 7: Exceed those numbers. Also, I have been doing backyard composting for.
Speaker 4: 12 years now. I'm a.
Speaker 7: Proud homeowner in GR and I run a small business where I teach.
Speaker 4: People how to grow their own food and with that.
Speaker 7: It includes healthy soils and a conversation about composting. I would love to have better exit.
Speaker 4: Access as well.
Speaker 7: So the proposed system, one where I can have a place to dispose of the branches and the types of food scraps that just don't work in our backyard, tumblers and small scale systems.
Speaker 4: And with this.
Speaker 7: If we normalize our weekly service and have the composting normalized, it's going to increase the equity of healthier soils, which means healthier foods. So these two pieces are going to help align our marketing with the fact that Denver is a green city. It's going to send a clear and strong visual message that we're green. When you see recycling and green beans out everywhere for compost every single week, we can. Fix this problem and have a clear visual cue that Denver does, in fact care live up to its Green City moniker. I know you care. I do too. Thank you for voting yes and supporting our expanded Ways Services.
Speaker 0: Next speaker is Beth Burchfield. And after we have Sherry Shelton Butler.
Speaker 4: Thank you. City council members. My name is Beth Burchfield. I'm a local entrepreneur. I'm the board chair for Women in Sustainability, and I'm a homeowner in District one. I'm here today to urge you to support the proposed expanded waste services for Denver in the over 9000 other communities across the country with similar services. Waste diversion rates for 2 to 3 times higher than Denver's dismal 26%, which is way lower than our national average of 32%. To echo what Katrina said, Colorado is known for our love of the outdoors. Yet our policies and diversion rates don't really reflect our caring for the planet. Since when is Denver comfortable being below average of anything? I feel like the only thing we should be below average on is obesity rates and unemployment. As I mentioned, I'm an entrepreneur and my company collects and delivers sustainability feedback.
Speaker 7: I concern.
Speaker 4: Citizens consistently. We see that compost and recycling requests are at the top of those lists. The data not only shows that this is what people in our community want, but would also have a tremendous environmental impact with organic waste, such as food scraps and yard waste, are thrown into the landfill. They emit methane, which is 84% more potent than CO2. I don't know if any of you have been out to any of the landfills, but I personally went out to one a couple of years ago. And after you see the volume and the impact that one landfill has, it's impossible to look away from that problem, and it's really important that we do something about it. You have an opportunity today to really help Denver take a huge step forward and go from below average to a potential leader in sustainability, which is much more reflective of the amazing city we call home. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sherri Shelton Butler. Followed by Ryan.
Speaker 7: Call Madam President and.
Speaker 6: Members of the commission here. I want to thank you for this. My name is Sherry Shelton Butler.
Speaker 7: I live in Littleton. I support this 125%. I want you to know that I got involved.
Speaker 6: With this eco cycle because I have.
Speaker 7: Invented an apparatus that washes plastic in the dishwasher, your zip top.
Speaker 6: Plastic bags. So it took me down a research channel.
Speaker 7: To find out that.
Speaker 6: The state that I love. Colorado is the 20th worst state in recycling.
Speaker 7: You heard a lot of statistics here and they are all things that I would have brought up, so I don't need to bring them up again.
Speaker 6: I really urge you to to listen to the statistics and make the step forward. It may not be the exact step. I agree with kind.
Speaker 7: Of coming in with some some meeting in the middle. But to make this step forward so that we can protect our state, our planet.
Speaker 6: And the promotion of proper waste.
Speaker 7: Management is far cheaper than the remediation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. We're going to move virtually now. Ryan, call.
Speaker 1: The City Council. I was hoping to join you all in person tonight, but I'm a bit under the weather. Anyway, it's no surprise that I'm joining all the folks dressed in green to express my support for the expanded Waste Services Policy and eco cycle. We just celebrated our 46th year anniversary, and I have the privilege of working with some of the absolute best zero waste policy experts and educators every day. So I brought to them the concerns that you all raised and thought that tonight I'd focus on the intersection of zero waste, education and policy. Recycling. Experts everywhere agree that education alone will not move the needle the way that volume based pricing for trash does. One recent study analyzed 500 cities and found that volume based pricing adds, on average, 10 to 11 percentage points increase to overall waste diversion. In comparison, education programs alone only add 1 to 3 percentage points. The best way to boost diversion of raise is through policy change and education. Still, education is needed every step of the way to make policy changes effective. Based on decades of experience. We support voting and plans not either or continuously heard that Denver has done nothing for recycling education. That's simply not true. Eco cycle help do education and outreach for the city in 2017 and 2019. Canvased on recycling and compost. Teaching folks the how and why of zero waste. And let's not forget about the Denver's 2019 quarter million dollar grant in partnership with Coca-Cola and the recycling partnership and the statewide erase the waste effort. Despite these educational efforts, our residential waste diversion rate has only moved from 23 to 26% in the last three years. Also, if you haven't been on the Waste Extravaganza tour with the Cancer Office, I would highly recommend it to our landfill recycling center and a compost facility seeing operations in-person and hopefully this. Getting rid of some of the misinformation that you might be you might hear and you learn from experts along the way. Education never stops. Now, I've looked at diaries zero waste education and outreach plan. For implementing this policy initiatives. My colleagues, based on best practices, we believe that as a comprehensive as anyone could ask for. It's very robust and well thought out plan. Of course, the criticism that I've heard is that the plan wasn't delivered five years ago. Still, I've said this sentiment every time I've addressed you all. But again, while the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, the second best time is now. In fact, this policy, if this policy hopefully passes policy implementation is the ideal time to engage residents with education and outreach. We're looking for our biggest bang for your buck. On improving residential waste collection and expanded waste service. That policy has it all. It's a proven testing approach, approach that will increase our recycling composting rates and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Passing this policy tonight, we can move forward in becoming a more sustainable and equitable city. Please don't wait. Vote yes on expanded waste services. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thinking. Changing, changing. Our next speaker is Sonya Hanson.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Sonia Hansen. I'm here to enthusiastically support a transition to expanded police services in Denver as I find myself in a transition. I'm a lifelong Coloradan and ten year resident of Council District ten, where I am part of the one third of Denver to subsidize waste services for those in single family homes and complexes of less than eight units. I am also a part of the population who benefits as a free rider from that subsidy. Since I recently purchased a house in District six, this proposed policy corrects the imbalance and establishes greater equity by allocating services to those who actually pay for them. Treating waste as a metered utility just like water, which has been metered in Denver since 1991. It's a basic conversation conservation principle that works. If we use less, we pay less. I'm actually so impassioned by this topic because I completed my master's thesis on improving waste diversion in Denver and have been advocating ever since for Denver to meet its waste diversion goals. I am also a public servant who works in recycling. Increased education was suggested as an alternative to policy change at last week's city council meeting. Instead, education is most effective when it complements robust policy. Education is indeed a powerful tool in reducing contamination and waste streams, but it does not increase recycling behaviors and thus waste diversion to the extent achieved by unit or volume based pricing. Also, copy as you throw. In fact, research indicates that 80% of the factors influencing pro-environmental behaviors do not stem from knowledge or awareness. That's starting to 28. Similarly in information, intensive campaigns are applicable only when a lack of supportive attitudes and a lack of knowledge are the barriers. And that is usually not the case that those are the only barriers. That's data from McKinsey More 2021. On the other hand, a variable fee system increased recycling by an average of 8 to 11%. It's the single most important factor in contributing to higher levels of recycling. That's data from Sue Moss, 1996. Pay, as you throw, has continued to deliver since the 1990s as the most viable, commonly accepted and proven policy tool for diverting valuable resources from the landfill. And it's been implemented by municipalities of all sizes around the world. The 2020 Climate Action Task Force, made up of diverse Denver stakeholders, made it their number one waste recommendation for good reason for council action. Frisco, Colorado, recently joined the 9000 plus municipalities already harnessing this policy, along with local leaders Durango and Loveland. Like Denver, Frisco faces real world civic challenges, inflation and affordable housing included. But seize the critical timing of doing the right thing for health equity for current and future Coloradans. Job growth in Colorado itself. Frisco's plan combines education with policy to reduce contamination and increase participation. Education alone won't move the needle. Thanks so much for your time and for your yes vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kristina miller. Can you see me? Hi. Can you hear me? Is it working? We can hear you. Okay. Go ahead. Okay, great. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 4: My name is Dana.
Speaker 6: Miller, and I have been.
Speaker 4: Involved in the sustainability world around Denver for the last few years. I including co-founding Grow Local Colorado. And I also served on the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. I'm excited to be here to support this initiative and really can't find anything else to say other than the wonderful things that other people have said. So please vote yes and I'll feed my time to the next speaker. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Zan Fussell.
Speaker 1: My name is Van Fussell. I am the founder and director of Calm Post Colorado, and I also serve on the Denver Sustainability Advisory Council as well as the US and Colorado Composting Council and am testifying in support of expanded services. As many in the audience know, Colorado's waste diversion rates that's recycling compost are below the national average. In Denver, we only recycle encompass about a quarter of our waste, despite the fact that over 40% of this landfilled waste could be composted or upcycled into other bio resources at the landfill. These organic resources leach methane gas into our atmosphere, a potent greenhouse gas that's causing climate change. I started Compost Colorado in order to make composting more accessible to households and businesses across the metro area. And while I'm proud of these efforts of my team and the environmental activists here in organizations working to divert waste from the landfill , I recognize that few things will impact our diversion rates more than the policy here today. This policy this policy will rapidly accelerate composting recycling rates in our community. For several years, this council has heard from countless tenacious environmental activists advocating for a more sustainable resource management policies such as Extended Waste Services. These experts, such as the Denver Sustainability Advisory Council, have scrupulously researched the best policies for our community to adopt. I'm very proud to work alongside these informed and passionate heroes fighting not just for a more sustainable Denver, but for a more sustainable world in a country where democratic institutions are withering away. I'm still hopeful and confident that at least at the community level, our community officials, you counsel listened to our community listen to these experts. It is because of these volunteers, these activists on green, these heroes that I'm confident that this body will listen and will pass expanded waste services. Thank you so much for your time. I greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Alex Truelove.
Speaker 3: City Council. Thanks for having me here so you can hear and see me. All right. My name is Alex Truelove. I'm a Denver resident and also the legislation and advocacy director for the Biodegradable Products Institute, which is North America's leading certifier of compostable materials, products and packaging that hundreds of member companies worldwide. As you might guess, I'm particularly interested in improving access to the collection and processing of compost because of how much potential it provides compared to how little we take advantage of it. So just to zoom out, the U.N. estimates that in food.
Speaker 1: Waste and loss for.
Speaker 3: A country, it would be the third largest emitter of.
Speaker 1: Greenhouse gas emissions after the US and China.
Speaker 3: Number three, it's that huge. And as others have alluded to, composting food.
Speaker 1: Waste avoids those methane emissions created by landfilling, which are unfortunately almost entirely that captured.
Speaker 3: Across the previous.
Speaker 1: Speaker. And on the back end.
Speaker 3: If regenerative agricultural practices like compost application cover cropping, no. Till we're used on crop and pastureland around the world, we would sequester more than our total global annual carbon dioxide emissions. True. In other.
Speaker 1: Words.
Speaker 3: This is an extremely low tax effective. And based on my years in environmental policy, I sincerely believe relatively cheap climate solution.
Speaker 1: Living a few years waiting. Like many of you I've seen through my work and privileged positions, cities and communities.
Speaker 3: Across the country embrace these value based systems that give.
Speaker 1: Residents greater access to resettlement and compost while also taking low income residents into account. And I've seen people adapt to those.
Speaker 3: Systems and I've seen the systems work. So I hope that this time Denver steps up to meet the challenge. Please vote.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thanks for my time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and transition back in chambers. Our first speaker back in chambers is Sebastian and Andrews, followed by Courtney Zurcher.
Speaker 1: Hi there, Council. Long time no see. Good evening. The first time I spoke to you was on climate, and the last time I spoke to you was on climate. The last time I spoke to you was in favor of passing Proposition two on to the Denver 2020 November ballot. And that was made me a very proud Denver. All of you voted to pass climate action on the ballot in Denver, turned it around and by a 25 point margin said yes. In the time of pandemic and financial instability. We still want climate action, even at the expense of a few bucks per year. I was so proud of my city council and I was proud of you for another reason. I was proud of you because you all promised to adhere to the Climate Action Task Force recommendations in 2020. Now, I do not expect all of you to remember that report in its entirety, but I would I would expect you to remember that promise. I'll admit I had to reread the report myself, and I found that on page 97 it says The task force recommends that council adopt a volume based draft proposal by the first part of 2021. Suffice to say, this proposal today is already coming a year late than you passed. It does not make sense that Denver residents currently pay for best. A 2020 Princeton study found that municipal compost reduces waste emissions by roughly 50%. This doesn't even include the carbon dioxide that is captured by the plants and trees that will grow on increased Denver compost. I understand this proposal has equity concerns. Just like I understood them when I helped draft the Climate Action Task Force Recommendations report. But for years, Denver families living in larger buildings of eight or more units have had the burden of paying for commercial trash services on top of paying for the rest of Denver services. And nobody threw up their arms then. I would love to consider Denver a leader on climate. I would love to consider all of you climate leaders. I would love to consider all of you people who care deeply about the future that you leave for Denver's kids and your kids. I would love to consider you all people whose legacy is built on a better world and leaving an earth for our children. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Courtney Zurcher, followed by Elisabetta Stach. When you can correct me, when you come up and introduce yourself and then Brandi Moore. No, go ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Courtney Zurcher. I am a Denver resident and I am here today to speak in favor of the expanded waste services. Why is this important to me? Soil health matters. Diverting waste from landfills matters. Our community's voices matter. I am morally compelled to speak today about the disparity between the potential composable organic matter that should be collected in Denver versus the actual compostable organic matter that's collected and diverted from landfills. Today, soil health matters because it is linked to human health. Diverting waste from landfills is important because organic matter breaking down in landfills is not only an opportunity cost of building nutrient bioavailable bioavailability, but it is also important to water retention in our soil. And it also a lack of composting leads to an enormous amount of unnecessary greenhouse emissions.
Speaker 6: When these compostable organic materials.
Speaker 4: Go to landfill and I'm speaking specifically about methane here as a member of the community who is aware of our soil health crisis, I am here to remind us that the that composting is a simple and natural, multifaceted solution that we should be focusing on our way. Our waste diversion rate in Denver is dangerously low at 26%. It's lower than Austin, Texas. It's lower than Boulder, Colorado. It's lower than Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland, Longmont and many other cities. The list goes on. Los Angeles, Gainesville, Portland. And this is counting. As I said, it's going on. So why do we why do these other cities have better waste diversion rates than Denver? A major reason is because the times of policy cities that I've mentioned are beating Denver, Colorado, to enacting policies for recycling and composting. When policy says to compost and to recycle, more composting and recycling happen. So again, I want to thank you for your time and this is very important. So cheers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Elisabetta. Justin. Yes. Go ahead, please. Hi. My name.
Speaker 6: Is Elizabeth at.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 4: Start. I am on the.
Speaker 6: Board of directors of the multifamily.
Speaker 0: Building where I live.
Speaker 6: We have 77 households in a building and on Capitol Hill. I'm here to urge you, of course, to pass the expanded.
Speaker 7: Waste Services bill under consideration.
Speaker 6: Today. As dwellers of a multifamily building, we have to pay extra for waste collection and recycling.
Speaker 0: While most.
Speaker 7: Households.
Speaker 6: In the city only have to pay.
Speaker 7: For their.
Speaker 4: Taxes, in addition to our taxes, our homeowners spend about $781 per month on trash and recycling, plus another $400 per month on composting. Together, we spend $14,000 on.
Speaker 7: Waste services.
Speaker 4: Last.
Speaker 6: Year alone in addition to our taxes.
Speaker 4: We don't we don't think paying.
Speaker 0: A fee for service is.
Speaker 4: Is wrong. In fact, we are all for it.
Speaker 0: But we think it should be applied equitably and equally.
Speaker 6: Across the city. But the current system is completely upside down in Denver.
Speaker 4: Because it is exactly the smallest households in the most efficient housing.
Speaker 6: Types stacked multifamily buildings that subsidize the services for single family.
Speaker 4: Homes. To add insult to injury, many who live in multi-family units are often exactly the people who can't afford the least to subsidize single family more affluent homes. Also, we should be incentivizing.
Speaker 0: Efficient, high density.
Speaker 6: Living, not penalizing it.
Speaker 4: As this current system does. One trash.
Speaker 6: Truck makes a.
Speaker 4: Stop at our building and collects waste from 77 households. A second trash truck or recycling truck collects the recycling for the same 77 units.
Speaker 6: That's two stops by a trash truck.
Speaker 4: These are if these households in our building were instead in single family detached homes, the collection would require 77 truck stops.
Speaker 7: For waste and.
Speaker 4: 77 truck stops for recycling. Not. That's a total of 140 154 stops. Instead of the two stops that is needed to service our building and I. And don't forget that each individual house would need its own recycling and trash containers that needs.
Speaker 6: To be provided.
Speaker 4: So this all means that more time, more staff, more fuel, more trucks, more resources need to are needed.
Speaker 6: To service single family homes then multi-family homes.
Speaker 0: Yet we are subsidizing single family homes.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is.
Speaker 6: Completely upside down.
Speaker 0: So thank you. That's the time. We have a lot of have our notes. I think you've got the most.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Randy Moe.
Speaker 6: President Gilmore, council members.
Speaker 4: Thanks for. Me be here. My name is Brandy Mo, and I live in the Ruby Hill neighborhood in Denver. I spent the first.
Speaker 6: Half of my adult life working as a social.
Speaker 4: Worker, and now I work in the recycling industry, and I've learned a few things during my career.
Speaker 6: One human.
Speaker 4: Behavior.
Speaker 6: Is immensely difficult to change and to Denver's recycling and composting rate is kind of embarrassingly low. You might be thinking, well, she's biased.
Speaker 4: She she works in the recycling industry. And sure, I might be a little bit biased.
Speaker 6: But I can tell you that most.
Speaker 4: People are absolutely floored when they hear that.
Speaker 6: Denver's recycling rate is just 26%.
Speaker 4: And we can do better like we really can. We just need to make.
Speaker 6: Decisions that foster positive change. Recycling experts.
Speaker 4: Agree that the best way to boost waste diversion is through policy.
Speaker 7: Change and.
Speaker 4: Education. Your vote this evening can support positive change in our city. As I mentioned, human behavior is immensely difficult to change. Shifting to a volume based pricing model will be.
Speaker 6: Tough in the beginning.
Speaker 4: Change can be and usually is tough.
Speaker 6: But it's going to be worth it.
Speaker 4: When our neighborhood was eligible to receive the green compost cards, I was so excited. It took a while to reconfigure our waste system in our house, but after we did, we were amazed at how much of our trash could be composted. Eventually, we reduced our black trash cart to.
Speaker 6: The cute 35.
Speaker 4: Gallon container, and at this point, we fill up the smallest trash cart.
Speaker 6: Once, about every month we are able to recycle and compost so much.
Speaker 4: Of our waste. Please consider voting yes this evening.
Speaker 6: Change can and usually is tough. We know this. But this change is worth it.
Speaker 4: Let's make Denver a leader in waste diversion. Denver deserves it. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And that concludes the time for our one hour courtesy public hearing. We're going to go ahead and then move into questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 685. And so I would ask council members, if you have questions to pose to the Dottie team members who presented. We'll go ahead and get you transitioned into the Q. Give us a second here. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions that I want to ask of our team. So let me just start with the first one. So on slide 19, it talks about the diversion rate, and I'd just like to know what year it was that we actually got rid of all the dumpsters and went to the single where we moved into the roll out barrels because we used to have a lot of people that would come. Most of them were on the edges of our city, and people would dump into our dumpsters that either had to pay in neighboring counties, or a lot of times it was contractors that knew where the dumpsters were. And they would basically, instead of having to go out to a landfill to dispose of their waste, they would drop it in our dumpsters. So that slide did not reflect any of the diversion that we saw happen as a result of moving to the dumpsters. So I'm just trying to figure out what year did that happen? Because I would like to see that included in the slide because it it's like a missing piece that made a huge difference in terms of a lot of the waste that ended up in our landfill from what our trash trucks had to pick up.
Speaker 6: Can I get that number back to you? Unless someone else from Daddy knows that answer. I'll get it back to you.
Speaker 0: I know it was after 2011, but I don't remember which year it was. And Jessica, could you introduce yourself with the apologies?
Speaker 6: Jessica Lally, daddy's project manager. I will get that answer to you. Okay.
Speaker 0: Let me just move on then and whenever you can get that, that would be much appreciated. Do you have that at that council?
Speaker 1: Adam Phipps We've got it. I believe it was in 2015, but we're working to confirm that right now. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I would just suggest updating that information because I think that's really important piece that was left out of that slide. Let me move on to my next one. I'm just curious to know what changes have been made to the billing system. I've actually had some people call my office that have had problems with the billing system online. They went to 311 and wanted to make their payment through 311 and they were told that 311 can't take payments. So I don't know, like if if changes have been made and if they have, what are those changes? So that if we're rolling this program out, we're not continuing to have some of those issues and challenges with people who will be expected to pay online. And then we have some people I walk every morning with a friend of mine who after she retired, she just said, I don't want to have anything to do with computers anymore. She has a flip phone so he doesn't not have connectivity to be able to pay a bill online. So what are we doing for customers like her? So I'm not sure who wants to answer that one, but. And I think this may apply to a lot of our folks in our community who are not connected either by choice or sometimes it's cost.
Speaker 1: So councilwoman and VIPs with. We certainly encourage the people of Denver to do online payments and leverage that technology if they can. It saves us both money from a mailing standpoint, but also the environmental impact here. Regardless of that, any payment that's needed for any service rendered by body is collectible. In in a person transaction at our wastewater facility or in our web facility will ensure that this is an allowable use of that service as well.
Speaker 0: So not everybody has that mobility. And I know wastewater is not easy to access, so I appreciate that in-person is another option. I think that's good. But for people who may be mobility challenged, is there a different way I can imagine? You know, a lot of our seniors who are choosing to age in place may have that challenge as well.
Speaker 1: Yet we can certainly accept him by track as well. So if there is a mobility impairment, that options is available as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. I have a few of these. Madam President, if I can just keep going. And then when you feel like you've got people lined up waiting, I'll get put in the back of the queue. All right. So question about the company that currently handles the composting for Denver. Are we going to continue to work with that company for where the waste goes to? And was was this rebid or will it be rebid? Because we I don't want to just pursue presume that it's a sole source contract without our normal RFP process that we normally do. And given that this is anticipated to be a new program. I'm just curious how all of that is being expected to be handled.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me defer to my operational team on that one.
Speaker 3: Art Media Director of Solid Waste Management. The current company we use is called A-1 Organics. We do have a contract in place with them. We have made contact and are working on the additional material that it's going to be delivered to them if this ordinance passes. So we are planning to have that company continue to serve as our compost material.
Speaker 0: So did we do an RFP or will we do a new or a PAM, assuming they're not the only company in the city or the metro area? Because it's my understanding they're not in Denver. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: They are not. The contract was already in place. If I'm not mistaken, the contract stipulates stipulate that they will handle all of our compost material from the city, whether as 30,000 customers or 180,000.
Speaker 0: And how long have they had the contract with the city? Oh, started composting. And what year?
Speaker 3: I don't have that information. I can certainly get it and get back to you today.
Speaker 0: I'm asking this because I know that we routinely put our contracts out to bid and just to assume we're rolling into a new one. I'm not saying anything about the quality of work they've done, but I'm just challenging the practice of what we normally do and whether we're doing that with this one council.
Speaker 1: One thing I can certainly confirm there is that there are procurement requirements within the city in County Denver that would prohibit us from a sole source contract, unless that was the only vendor that was able to provide that service. And we well documented that. So as we look at ensuring that we're getting adequate value for any of our contracts, we'll certainly be in compliance with that program. And that would apply for this service as much as it would anything else.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I guess if there are others in the metro area that are closer than Kingsburg, you know, it may be who, especially when we're talking about transport, distancing and emissions and where we know that greenhouse gas emissions come more so from vehicles than they do our waste stream. So that becomes an important part of this conversation. So thank you for answering that question. Let me go on. I have a couple more. And then, Madam President, after I ask this next to, I'm happy to be put to the back of the line. So in the slide that it talked about weekly inspections for illegal dumping. We didn't do this when people were illegally dumping in our dumpsters. And we're basically seeing lots, a lot more waste that was being put in our dumpsters, that was being taken out to our landfill. Where were the staff come from that will do that because we're challenged today to have enough drivers and we still need 22 more to ramp up this program. Where will those workers come from that will do that?
Speaker 1: Certainly, Councilwoman. And to further clarify the previous comment you made in regard to dumpsters. We didn't confirm with the team it was a phased out process where we eliminated dumpsters starting in 2015 and concluding in 2017 for this enforcement aspect. And this will be performed by inspectors that will be included in the hiring process as we step up for the implementation of value based pricing. And so those inspectors will be expanded within the service.
Speaker 0: So that that cost is built into the fee schedule?
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 0: So how many inspectors then? Well, we have total.
Speaker 3: We'll have.
Speaker 1: One inspector at a minimum in each district. I believe it will put us at a total of six inspectors when we're fully staffed.
Speaker 0: Okay. And what role will complaints play in the process? I mean, a lot of times neighbors don't like their neighbors. We've had incidents where, you know, dog complaints, trash complaints could I think in Councilman Gilbert's district, where she recently passed a new piece of legislation to deal with complaints about trash and how that was, you know, adding to people getting put on foreclosure lists and things like that. So just curious about how that how complaints play into that.
Speaker 1: Good. Good question, Councilwoman. Each complaint that we receive through our customer service will be investigated by one of these inspectors. That inspector will first start with a robust educational campaign to make sure that the resident understands what is allowed or what isn't allowed. And then we'll follow up with enforcement down the line if we can achieve compliance with education.
Speaker 0: And I know we have some people who don't have room in their yards and their trash bins sit in the alley. I know that's the case for one of my trash bins. And I often have people who are dumping their waste, their their animal waste in my trash bin. And, you know, how do you factor in something like that if it's dumped into a recycling bin or, you know, something like that, where the inspection the inspector may be getting complaints or they may see that happening. And so all of this then will lead to how does that play into penalties? And then came the penalties lead to a lead on a property.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So a series of the questions are so similar to the previous answer. I'll start with education. Right. And so when we make contact with that resident, whether there's a report of a lack of compliance with what's allowed or not, or we notice that on our routes when we speak with them, we'll try to understand what the limitation is, what the barriers, the lack of understanding, or is it maybe a fellow resident that is dumping illegally into their bins? If that's the case, we certainly would not pursue any type of fine or fee associated with that and certainly would never take that to the point that we're looking at only needing a piece of property because a neighbor is inappropriately using another trash can.
Speaker 0: Okay. So then assuming it is somebody that is just hasn't quite got it in terms of what race goes into which bin, what is the penalty for. After the education is done, the inspectors had to go out to that home maybe more than once. What is the cost of that? Fine.
Speaker 1: I'll emphasize this one more time, that compliance is our goal, and we really do want to achieve that through education. If that's not the case, the rules and regs will determine what the fine is associated with a first time offense, which will likely be somewhere in the neighborhood of about $40.
Speaker 0: That's for a first offense. And if they're a repeat offender, is there a max that it could go up to?
Speaker 1: The rules of regs are not finalized at this time. Again, we're not looking to financially penalize somebody that's attempting to be compliant. And so we'll try to close compliance as low as possible to achieve that compliant.
Speaker 0: Okay. And if you have somebody that just. Those are like this program. They're not going to do it. They're going to put their trash wherever they put it and they start getting fined. Is there a max and can that fine then lead to a lead on the property?
Speaker 1: Just kidding. I do not believe so.
Speaker 0: Okay, so. So we're just talking about the fees then that lead to the lane, not the fines.
Speaker 6: Correct. The fines for contamination have nothing to do with the lane process. Okay.
Speaker 0: Just want to clarify that.
Speaker 6: We would take away their recycling and compost carts if they are not using them. Okay.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. I'll get that put to the back of the line and do have a few more. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council President. I just have one question that I don't believe was in the slide, but certainly a lot of people ask, why isn't this covering 100% of households?
Speaker 1: So, Councilman, in regards to why does this not apply to residences that are that house more than eight families? Is that the question?
Speaker 3: Yes, sir.
Speaker 1: So we're working within the establishment of solid waste ordinances as as it exists today. Those are not where we're able or seeing the greatest opportunity to affect change of those commercial properties or those mobile resident properties or have recycling have in most in many cases, composting available today. And our goal here is to simply provide that on the residential level, that gets us to a diversion rate that's more comparable or even better than than our system comparisons.
Speaker 3: Uh, so it's not because of a state law that precludes us from competing with private trash vendors. That's what I was hoping you wouldn't say so. I'm confused.
Speaker 1: But yes, we as a municipality cannot compete with commercial vendors. State statute as your reference. Thank you for that recollection, Councilman.
Speaker 3: I apologize, Director, that I was asking you a question I knew the answer to. But but I wanted to for you to say it. So perhaps someone who's more familiar with the state law can go into little more detail on what the what the preclusion is. Why why we're tackling seven and fewer units. And I am and I'm not asking for speculation, but may be why is the state law that way? That seems really weird to me and to a lot of other people. So. So if if there's a way to describe it without just, you know, speculating, I'd be curious to know what the answer is.
Speaker 1: Yes, certainly, councilman, I am not an expert in that state statute. I'm not sure that we have anyone here who represents that perspective. I don't believe 711.
Speaker 3: Guys doing their job is going to go the Oracle.
Speaker 6: Service guys do or mayor's office. So you've correctly described it. The state statute precludes us from serving personal multifamily properties over a certain number. Again, without speculating, that was certainly something that was lobbied for to keep the private sector from having to compete with the public sector for moving forward on our services.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think that's compelling because otherwise why while I commend the director for his answer, I think that state statute is is a you know, unfortunately, we have to live with the the laws of the state and federal level. And but why? There's a citizen initiative also that's considering tackling the rest. How can the citizen initiative override the state law? And we can't.
Speaker 4: So the state law prohibits us from providing those services to commercial and multifamily properties.
Speaker 6: It doesn't preclude us from legislating requirements for how that services provided, which is what there was no more ballot measure would propose to do.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Skye. And thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Hines, I was going to address that very point that for the folks who were talking about the fact that large multi-family and commercial subsidizes single family and small residential, that is the that is right at the feet of the state legislature decades ago to carve out the that market for the private hauling industry. They prohibit the city from serving the folks who live in high rises or large apartment complexes so that the private hauling industry has a part of the market just for themselves. So if it's not that we don't want to serve you, it's that we can't. I would like to ask you a question, and I don't know who would answer it. Maybe Margaret or Jessica, or if there's somebody from Human Services here. But with regard to the rebate program, I've had several constituents really reach out to me and ask, will the Denver renters and homeowners who receive the Denver based senior and disabled property tax refund that's at the city level separate from the senior homestead exemption that applies to anyone, regardless of income. Will those people be included automatically in the rebate program? Because otherwise I was asked to please maybe introduce and promote an amendment that would make that very clear. I know that that program is run I believe it's run by Department of Human Services. So it ought to be on their radar. And folks who are in that program ought to be automatically in it. Are they?
Speaker 6: So thank you. Council member Jeff Galloway, that is project manager. So unfortunately, Denver Human Services isn't here with us today, but I can answer that question they will be offering to everyone who applies for the property tax relief program this year that they are eligible for our instant rebate program and offering to automatically enroll them in our program as they've already provided everything we need from them for the property tax program. So we are definitely doing that with across all local DHS programs.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I was told I think Jason Gallardo touched to me before the meeting because I had asked that question earlier today that there are actually very few households that are in that program. We ought to maybe want more widely advertised that program, probably fewer people doing that than doing composting right now, and they deserve this break. I think my next question might be for you also. You spoke during Jessica. You spoke during the presentation about construction and demolition. Let me find a slide, 37% diversion from commercial. And here it is. Commercial wage, 20, 20, 37% diversion, not including construction and demolition recycling. So can you be a little more specific? We have three categories that we've measured at the landfill. I believe we have Denver's program. Which is about I think we said 18% of what goes to the landfill comes from our program. It was 30 about 32% of what goes to landfill comes from, you know, waste management and and Republique or whatever the name of that is now, the private haulers. That's about 32% of what is dumped. And then construction and demolition makes up about 50% of what is dumped at the landfill. So when you said the 37% diversion of commercial waste, you're only referring. This is going to sound weird to the 37% of the 32% of the total dumping at the landfill.
Speaker 6: Referring to apartment complexes greater than the units and businesses that we don't service.
Speaker 5: Okay. So what is the what do we know? Is the diversion or do we know the diversion by a construction and demolition sectors? I say that because I know that Portland has a very high rate of diversion, and it may be, in fact, due largely to the fact that they mandate a diversion from demolition of buildings that they can't all go to. The landfill has to be recycled, reused, etc..
Speaker 6: I don't have the breakdown by material right now.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 5: All right. That would have been president.
Speaker 7: I have that available to answer. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go ahead, Councilmember.
Speaker 7: The Solid Waste Master Plan has a sustainable resource management plan update that came out just a couple of months ago. And table one of that plan indicates that our diversion from construction and demolition debris is 36%. So it is very similar percent to the commercial commercial 37 as the slide indicates. And the number for construction and demolition is 36% diversion, 10% higher than our residential rate.
Speaker 5: Okay. But of course, the volume is 50% that goes to the landfill in the first place. So 46% of what goes to the landfill, another 36% is diverted somehow.
Speaker 7: Okay. Actually, construction and demolition is 36%. I'm sorry, it's not 50%. Construction demolition is 36% of the landfill and 36% is it diverted. So about a third of a third.
Speaker 5: Okay. We were told earlier the construction demolition was 50% and large multifamily and commercial waste was 32 and residential was 18.
Speaker 7: Grace Rink maybe the best person to call up to clarify. I will just say this resource plan update just came out a couple of months ago. We began these briefings before this plan came out. So it may very well be that the data was updated as the new version came out. I thank you. Councilmembers Grace Rink, Executive Director of the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability Resiliency. And my apologies, Councilman. I don't recall ever saying 50% or hearing of it because.
Speaker 4: It's the as councilwoman.
Speaker 7: Can you just said in our most recent report, construction and demolition debris is 36% of the city's total waste. And and oddly, 36% of that is diverted. Okay. Not 50%.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. That's all I have right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Grace and Councilmember Canete and Councilmember Flynn. Next up, we've got Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thinking I'm present. My questions are for Dottie. I just want to go a little bit into the diversion number that people seem to keep bringing up the 26%. How often is that number recalculated? Is it an annual number like Denver's conversion rate is 26. We calculate this annually should this program pass. How? With the frequency of updating that number. I'll start with that.
Speaker 6: Thanks to school Ali. Program manager. Project manager. It is annually. Continued to be annually.
Speaker 3: So you said earlier going back it will come down next. So what is the expectation or goal should this path.
Speaker 6: To exceed the national average. But we know that by expanding comp of service to the rest of the city, with at least 70% of them composting, the projections put us at about 40% diversion.
Speaker 3: So over what period of time?
Speaker 6: 2424. I believe that I can send you that projection.
Speaker 3: So our expectation is in one year of this program, we will go from 26 to 40%. Diversion, right?
Speaker 6: I can send.
Speaker 7: You the.
Speaker 6: Details on the data and how our projected tonnage increase would increase our diversion rate that high. With 70% of the city participating in compost at least.
Speaker 3: So what if we don't hit that number?
Speaker 6: Great question. It's not our intent. If we don't.
Speaker 1: Do so, Adam flips with. So, Councilman, if we don't achieve that objective, which is 2024, given that we have pushed back the rollout here by about three months, we'll have to look at an exact date and we can follow up with that. If we don't achieve it, education is the key with any new program, any new policy we recognize will be a learning curve there. But we also recognize that we need to push ourselves, we need to push the community. And so if we don't get there within our timeline, we'll continue to educate and reevaluate our educational tactics to ensure that we're reaching all aspects of the community. We'll look if we see neighborhood discrepancies so that we can ensure that we tailor our outreach specifically to that individual community so that we can ultimately get to that goal if we don't achieve it right off the bat.
Speaker 3: And I ask that question because is this something that's going to continue in perpetuity? The yeah, the feat. Because if our goal is to increase and we're not at the rate that we want, we still continue to charge for trash.
Speaker 1: So it's a good question, Councilman. So let me answer the first part of that. So we do have budgeted within the annual financial plan with the Special Revenue Fund an educational component. So we certainly would anticipate a robust educational program continuously throughout from from here on, we recognize that there will be new constituencies, new folks in Denver , folks that are that are growing, that are aging, that might need different assistance, whatever help we want, ensure that engagement is there. And so we certainly believe through previous evaluations of pay as you throw or volume based pricing trash programs that with a proper amount of education, you can have substantive change and meet those objectives.
Speaker 3: Okay. So when during the presentation it was mentioned we had been in the twenties for years up until this point. What have we done as a city to raise that number? I, I hear I heard education. So help me understand prior to this proposal what Denver has done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me let me make one point and then handed over to Ms.. Rink here. I can tell you what we have done is we've disincentivized, we charge for composting right now. In fact, if you choose the lower sized carts moving forward with this volume based pricing, you pay less than if you're a customer today. And so we disincentivized to include composting. If you recall the graphic from the presentation, approximately 50% of Denver's revenues on a weekly basis is composed of oil. And so we've disincentivized it. And so what we're hoping to achieve here is not only a continuation and expansion of education that we've done to date, but also providing those alternative options and recognizing that there's an impact based on the amount of trash that each family produces. But, Councilman, if it's agreeable to you, I'd like to turn it over to Mr..
Speaker 3: And before Grace comes up to talk about the education piece. I absolutely agree with you, Adam. We have disincentivise it, so why don't we simply just stop charging for compost?
Speaker 1: Well, we also. So that would remove the disincentivise. And yet we now also want to go further and incentivize. So if you reduce the amount of waste that you send to the landfill that's cost, the service is going to be the lowest. If you do not make a substantive change there, you chose the largest cost you. The family will see that largest cost as part of the program. So, again, we're not only trying to remove the barrier of just incentivizing it with a paid compost program, we also want to make sure that folks understand that there is value to reducing the amount of refuge that they create.
Speaker 3: Why do we charge for composting in the first place? This may not you may I know your found out. You may not know the answer to that. When we first brought composting to the city wide charge, if we knew that was going to disinvite some folks.
Speaker 1: You know, Councilman, I do not know the answer to that. I can speculate that, but I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: Fair. Thank you. Great.
Speaker 7: Hello? Excuse me. I just wanted to add a couple pieces of information. So, first, in the year 2000, Denver's recycling rate was below 10%. So it has increased 1 to 2% every year for 20 years. So it has been increasing. We would just like to increase it faster. And I would like to think that, or at least the way I look at the numbers, I think that the education program to date for both recycling and composting has had an effect. I would argue it has flatlined. And so this is a change that we need to bring to the program to in order to really drive change. So right now, we have actually succeeded in collecting about 60% of the recyclable materials in our homes today. So the recycling education is getting to people. They're hearing it. I suspect that perhaps because they don't have weekly recycling, many people are having to put some of their recyclable material into their weekly trash in order to get it out of their house or they're holding onto it for the extra trash pickup. Now, with composting, we have succeeded in recruiting or are transforming 15% of our customers into paying customers who are willing to pay into the composting program, even though they could otherwise have that taken away for free in their black garbage can. So I think that education has worked. We just aren't seeing enough of a change. And I agree with Adam when he says that in addition to providing the tools that the people need, the infrastructure to put our education into action. Right, they need that compost cart. And then what goes along with that? The complementary piece is the incent, the financial incentive to then downsize their trash part to this size that really works for their household and only pay that amount in order to have that trash taken away.
Speaker 3: So here's what I'm not hearing. I keep hearing we have educated, but what have we done? Like I hear education specifically. The city has invested x millions of dollars to flier x number of neighborhoods. And from that, from September to December, we did see an increase. We did not. This is how we adjusted an impact of that. I have not heard how we have impacted it from that.
Speaker 7: I hear what you're saying.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm trying to get.
Speaker 7: I hear what you're saying. And I think that because I am not a marketing professional and I don't know that any of us are. I don't know that I can draw that direct line to say, because we fly to this neighborhood or because we ran this program, we saw an X percent uptick in recycling or composting. I just as a I don't want to fall back on the fact that we're government agencies, but we are a government agency. We we educate, we make people aware. But we don't have that data that I think you're looking for, which shows that direct correlation.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Grace. And and thank you, Madam Chair. Madam President. And that is my problem, because we have not. Sorry. That was a comment. Thank you. I'm good.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And thank you for the staff members who answered. We'll get to the comment section here pretty soon. Councilmember Ortega, I've got you back in the queue, but I haven't heard from our other. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Kinney, please go ahead with your questions.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council president. We had a couple speakers, Lawrence, and I am just looking for the other named Clare Harris, Lawrence Murray and Clara Harris. And I think it's always important to hear the feedback from those with concerns about the program. And they both asked us could we be requiring more of commercial folks and of people who build buildings? And I think that's a really important question. Before we ask something of our residents, what are we asking of our businesses and builders? And so, Grace, I was going to ask if you could please address this idea that, you know, the concern was why aren't we requiring solar panels? Why aren't we requiring more of builders? And so could you please talk about what we are doing in that regard? Because I think it's really important for folks to know this is not the only requirement we're talking about. We have others. So can you just describe a few of those requirements for those speakers who wanted to hear more about that? Certainly, you're right. This is definitely not the only policy that we're pursuing. And so I'll speak to two. First, you've just asked about in our Speaker House about really new construction requirements. And we will we are hoping to come back to council later this year with our first introduction of solar ready electrification ready requirements for new construction in the code. So this is something that this. It has been working on for a couple of years. It takes some time to get into the building code, but we were there last year. In November, the council already passed the energize Denver building performance policy, which will require all of our large commercial buildings 25,000 square feet and larger, as well as some other requirements for smaller commercial buildings to get as close to net zero as possible by 2040 with significant reductions required by 2030. So we are we're absolutely working on I want to add my Midwestern roots. I say soup to nuts. We're trying to do all of it.
Speaker 6: I'm trying to do all the different things.
Speaker 7: And managing emissions from waste is certainly one of them. But so, so is managing emissions from buildings and homes as well as for transportation. And then can you just mention one other ordinance, the Green Roofs Initiative and what that requires, please? Sure. The green roof the green roof ballot initiative back in 2016 was transitioned or evolved into the green building ordinance, which now requires that all new construction buildings have to meet certain energy requirements or put vegetated roof on their building or I'm sorry, onsite solar, but it also requires the same of any existing building that is replacing the roof. And so that I'm able to tell you that 95% of the buildings that are going through that requirement have chosen the energy efficiency option. And so they're all working on reducing the energy usage in their buildings because of that ordinance. So between the green building ordinance, the energize Denver for large buildings and then the upcoming building code, is there any piece of our built environment that won't have some sustainability requirement once we finish that building code update? I mean, there are get no so there are within energize Denver. There are some requirements that we're still working on for special types of buildings like manufacturing and agricultural buildings. But yes, the built environment, we are covering it with policies between all three of those. Some everybody's covered by something. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. And then really quickly, there were several questions from councilmembers about diversion rates. And this particular slide deck tonight did not have the historical line graph with the diversion rates in it, but I have emailed that to all councilmembers in response to those questions because I had it handy and you were asking about it. So for council members, that is in your email box, that slide that shows the historic diversion rate. So if there are follow up questions for the staff, it is now in front of us. So just wanted to to answer that. And with that I will pass it back to I don't know if our vice chair is taking over, but it looks like Councilman Ortega is next in the queue or.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 7: Councilman Clark has the has the mic.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I think we have customer receipt, tobacco got ends and so Councilmember Ortega already had a chance. If we can go to Councilmember Silver.
Speaker 4: My line of questioning was the same as Councilman Herndon. So those questions get answered. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Take care of your backup.
Speaker 0: So let's see. Grace or. So I'm not sure who needs to answer this. But let me just go back to the billing question for a minute. So we're talking about collections of $33.5 million, basically with this new program. Right. So today's trash service is $27 million roughly? I don't remember that. I heard Councilman Herndon ask this question, but what would it cost just to add composting if we paid for that for all of the households? Same as we do with the rest of our services. And I'm assuming you all would still look at weekly service for all three bins.
Speaker 1: So, Councilwoman, the change in cost between what you see between the general fund appropriation today and the $33 million number you just referenced is representative of both the weekly recycling as well as citywide composting. I don't have the numbers available to me that delineate the costs between those two programs. Looking to my staff to see if they may, I believe we do have it. So give us just one moment, Councilman.
Speaker 0: So. Well, while you're doing that, let me just ask. So I guess sort of getting back to the question that Councilman Herndon raised, I, I couldn't understand why, number one, we didn't start with education and then roll that out similar to the way we did with the recycling. And as you heard, we've continued to get more and more people to participate in the recycling. So I'm so that's why I'm asking the question, how much would it cost just to do that? Because essentially what we're doing is saying, well, we're going to collect a new $33 million, 33.5 roughly today. It costs us 27 million. But that 27 isn't like automatically being folded into this program. And one of your slides showed that some of that some of what we collect today would be put into a number of other programs. And there's like a difference of $12 million that would be left supposedly returning back to the general fund. So if we're returning that much money, why wouldn't we just add composting and do everything we can to start getting everybody to be composting? Same way we did with recycling.
Speaker 1: So let me first invite my finance director, Zack Carter, to the answer, the delineation number, and then I'll tackle this. Okay. Thank you, counsel. Good evening. Decorative financial director for Dottie. So I understand the question correctly is the cost of rolling out compost citywide as the general fund activity? We currently invest about 1.9 million for the paid service appropriated for compost service. To expand that out to the full city would be about an additional $4 million. We're looking at about 6 million total to have a full compost service provided by the general fund.
Speaker 0: And that would be taking away the program for people who are paying for it today and just covering it for everybody.
Speaker 1: That is correct. And consistent with the cost of rolling out citywide recycling on a weekly, weekly basis.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's why the numbers don't make sense to me. I mean, I get the the the push that if people are paying that, they're going to be more encouraged to recycle and compost. Again, we've raised the recycling party's participation rate, but we've not. We so some people have chose to pay right today and others feel like, you know, my trash service has always been part of my taxes, so why should I be paying for that? And then since there's such a significant cost difference between just adding that versus rolling out all of the trash service into a new fee structure , which I'm assuming will be set up as a as an enterprise fund. Help me understand why we didn't start with that.
Speaker 1: So, Councilman, I'm struggling to follow the question completely, but let me make a few clarifying points here. One, the numbers I believe you're referencing here, speak specifically to 2023. Where is.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I looked at that as well as the projections over the next six years to 2034.
Speaker 1: That's correct. And so certainly next year, we will experience some expenses that relate to one time implementation. And next year we'll wait to determine what the cost to the city is for the affordability program. We don't have a certainty around that cost because we don't know who's going to subscribe to that now, and we want to make sure we do not shortchange it. Now, to add additional information to the question is, what am I not answering there, Councilwoman?
Speaker 0: Well, we're adding more cost to the program because we're including the affordability program. We're also saying to our drivers, if you have, you know, people on your routes that are, you know, in in an area where you've got topography, that requires steps for people to get their trash bins down the steps. And I know in some of our neighborhoods, they literally have to take them down the alley to this to the side street and then bring them to the front. And we're saying if they're elderly and they can't get their their trash bins down, three of them. Right. We'll have our driver stop in the middle of the street and our driver will go do that. And I'm concerned about the workman's comp claim. So we will see if we're asking our drivers to do that when it snows. And if, you know, we're talking about elderly folks who can't take their trash bins, more than likely, they have an. Had a chance to remove the snow on their sidewalks. So it's some of those kinds of things that I've been told in the briefings that that's something that we're going to do. And in fact, we're adding to emissions in the middle of the street by by forcing them to stop and asking them to go do that, take three bins, you know, bring them down, probably take them back. So I'm just not understanding why we didn't just start with that. And given that we're only talking 4 to $6 million instead of $33 million per program, because now what we want to do is create a separate fund just for all of our trash services.
Speaker 1: So yeah. So Councilman, first of all, I want to clarify the service that we would provide to any resident that's mobility impaired is provided today. And so any increased risk to that is is incremental. And so certainly not a concern that I have that I have now as it relates to would there be a different way that we can propose how we manage waste it? Certainly we could look at a less aggressive we could certainly look at a more aggressive. What we're bringing forth to council today is what our recommendation is based on review of peer cities, based on actual results over the last 10 to 20 years on how we achieve the goals that we've set out. And so that's where the recommendation that's for council today was developed.
Speaker 0: Got it. Okay. So on the fees, is that intended to be done through the wastewater? So when the wastewater bills go out, somehow now will include billing for trash service with wastewater. We used to see wastewater bills with our water bills, right? Yeah. So how are we looking to do that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So we were working towards a single consolidated bill for the utility services that you receive from the city and county number of be inclusive of what you were traditionally used to in wastewater in Denver water bill as well as this volume based pricing service.
Speaker 0: So we're going to include water, wastewater and trash. These all in one bill.
Speaker 1: Just the utilities provided by the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 0: So wastewater and the trash and.
Speaker 3: Trash, correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And is wastewater absorbing any of the costs associated with the billing system?
Speaker 1: So the billing system will.
Speaker 0: Mailing out the notices.
Speaker 1: So both programs will be hit with that expense. So we will appropriate the appropriate amount of expense for any billing system to the wastewater fund. And we were appropriate the of the right amount of expense to the SRF for this solid waste, as we're calling.
Speaker 0: It, a special revenue fund, not an enterprise fund.
Speaker 1: So wastewater is an investment?
Speaker 0: No, this one, we're not calling it an enterprise, but.
Speaker 1: It is not are we not calling it an investment? It is a spectrum.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let me see. I think I have a couple more, so. When I had my briefing, I was told that we were going to start the billing notices in October. So the program would would start January, but it was based on, you know, starting to get the bins out to everybody in October. I don't know how that has changed since that briefing, because I believe there was an agreement that the program would be moved to January. Now, so has has that timeframe changed of when those notices go out and when people would start getting their bins?
Speaker 1: So we certainly are continuing to propose a phased roll out. And consistent with what we have referenced before, the timeline will certainly shift as a result of the initiation date of the ordinance.
Speaker 0: Okay. So what I'm getting at is I was told that people will start getting their bins, you know, in that phased out system that you just mentioned. But everybody would start getting their notices, their bills, and some people would then basically have theirs credited. But when we were having the conversation, it was going to be an onus put on the household to have to contact the city, to say you need to, you know, credit me. So has that changed?
Speaker 1: So that onus will not be on the customer to contact us? I think we will be doing that automatically.
Speaker 0: So we're automatically tracking who's getting the bin.
Speaker 1: Sort.
Speaker 0: Of bills. So we're not starting to notify anybody who hasn't received the bins. They're not going to get a bill until they get the paper.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's. Thank you for.
Speaker 1: That. And Councilwoman. Just to clarify, if you receive a bill and you do not have a bill, you will get a credit for the fact that you do not yet have a bin or that bin service is not yet available for you. I want to make sure I'm answering that question here.
Speaker 0: So it's tracking whether they get the credit and making sure that they haven't received the bin.
Speaker 1: The same team that's tracking whether or not they've received a bin and whether or not bin service is available yet.
Speaker 0: Okay. So my last question is about the annual costs that are projected starting in 2023 and 33.5 million. It shows 6.5 ranged from 6.5 to 7 million as an annual cost just for the trucks. I know we approved something like 15 trucks, if I'm remembering correctly, that came through here. I don't know. I want to say about a month ago. Yeah. And just curious if we're going to be buying new trucks every year and how that fits into that batch that we just approved. Are we are we moving to electric electric trucks? Are we, you know, just continuing to buy the same trucks we've been buying? Because if we're making that very clear to the people we're buying them from and technology keeps changing, I want to make sure we're continuing to move that needle on the emission side.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so good. Good question, Councilwoman. So the purchase the lease purchase that this body saw approximately two or three months ago was for replacement of the existing fleet. Today, that is not included within its volume based pricing within the line item for the annual budget. What we're anticipating is that replacement of approximately 14 trucks a year. Moving forward, the average service life for a solid waste vehicle industry standard is four years. We are far we are nearly double that with the fleet in Denver right now. So we certainly have a backlog that we are looking to not only catch up with and address, but we also have just started the process for initiating a heavy duty electric vehicle study so that we can ensure that when the technology exists, we as a city are one of the first to market. We we were the one of the first to roll out an all electric sweeper. And we see a lot of promise in our total vehicle technology for the heavy duty market. And we're beginning that study just, in fact, in the last week.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Adam. I have no further questions. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I don't know who should answer this question, but on slide 24, which is in the appendix, it says and I remember reading about this in a couple of months ago in Denver. Right. I think had an article online. And the first bullet says about weekly recycling that there's been a high demand from customers and city council, that we go to weekly recycling throws. And I was puzzled when I read the article and then when I see this in the presentation, because in seven years that I've been here, I have never had any constituent ask me for weekly recycling. And I thought, Well, do they cut the telegraph lines to Southwest Denver? Maybe I just did not get the news. But I have had a lot of constituents who have said, you know what, I fill up my cart every two weeks and I have more I could put in there. Could you give me a second card? Or better yet, could you give me the 95 gallon purple card? Because we seem to default to the 65 gallon cart when when somebody gets a new card, they get 65. Or my neighbor, for whom I got a second card, he got a 35 gallon one. You know, we should always be if we want to encourage recycling, we should always give out the 95 gallon. So have we actually documented who it is that's demanding weekly recycling? I have never had anyone ask me for weekly recycling.
Speaker 1: So, Councilman, I certainly understand that that's not something that you may be hearing from your constituents within your district. I can say this from a citywide sample. When we went out to do our public engagement for this effort, it was something we certainly heard from a city wide perspective. And so in regards to documenting those individual conversations, I'll defer to my communications team on that. But do we keep hearing it myself as well?
Speaker 5: I mean, do we keep a log or anything? Like who? Who are these forms? I can say accurately that I have had near unanimous opposition to this proposal. And I can say that I've had only one constituent that has told me they support it. And she's sitting in the room here, and I'll acknowledge that. But everyone else I've heard from has said weekly recycling is a waste of resources, driving twice the number of twice the amount of mileage, twice the number of trucks around the city every week instead of every other week is a waste, and it will offset any gain in lowered emissions from the landfill. By doing that, because we're just driving twice as much with diesel trucks around the city.
Speaker 3: And why did.
Speaker 5: We or did we evaluate keeping the biweekly recycling? Because unlike compost, it won't rot. It won't draw maggots. It will sit there for the second week giving the 95 gallon cart or two cards to customers, the few customers who actually would need we.
Speaker 3: Who.
Speaker 5: Would benefit from weekly recycling? What was our evaluation on that? Because it seems to me it's a waste of resources.
Speaker 6: Councilman Flynn. My name is Margaret Mather and deputy manager here. I just wanted to address a few of your comments and questions. First of all, we do keep a log and a record of public comments that we get. And we actually look at that and we map it. We have a top concern so that that helps us direct how we can better serve our customers. So we we do have a record and a log of comments we get. But then we also I know council, our council members get comments and then they will then get fed to us. And so we know that we have heard, you know, maybe not every council member, but we have that has been a big comment that we've had.
Speaker 5: Margaret, how did we reach out to people in order to see what they've what they wanted? Because we've heard a lot from from people who are organized, the Climate Action Task Force, it's in their recommendations. But I have a feeling that Rosario and Margaret didn't know that people were asking, Do you want weekly recycling? I have a feeling that folks in Brentwood and and Marlee and Harvey Park had no idea that we were asking the folks in the green shirts what they would like to see, what was more outreach to the broader neighborhoods on this.
Speaker 6: And I know that we did do a citywide outreach effort, I think specifically to talk to the weekly recycling, though, part of the benefit of the reroof that we did in breaking the city up into districts and aligning our solid waste teams. So we have a supervisor who is responsible for a district and that's a trash district that doesn't align with our city council districts, but that we have our staff out in the field. They talk to people, they connect with them. And a big concern that we hear is carp management. And so the idea that you're going to now bring more carts and again, this is dependent on the part of the city you're in, in the neighborhood, and that's why we really try to tailor our our service. But the last thing a lot of people want is a bigger bean in another bean. And, um, and Director McGwire did it and his team did an analysis of the weekly recycling. And, you know, the thing we need to remember is we're not changing the tonnage. What we're doing is changing what Bennett goes into. And when you do weekly recycling more, that gets into the recycle bin. And maybe you don't need to take your card out every week if you don't fill up the weekly recycling. But it is not double the trucks. That's not the way that the math works out. And I don't know, Director, you want to.
Speaker 5: Let me ask you this. Would we have a way should this pass in our analysis of whether it's successful or whether it's falling short, whether it's exceeding goals? Would we have a way of determining? Because I would contend that giving 95 gallon purple cards one to most households would suffice for biweekly and not need weekly pickup. Most households won't need a weekly pickup. If we gave them the 95 gallon card, would we have a way if this were to pass? To report back to council in the two year or five year review. How often are households? Are they putting it out every week? That and if they are, I mean, will we know, you know, 50% of the houses put it out every week, 25% put it out every week or whatever. And will we know how much is in those cards? If I were to do it, it's just me and my wife were empty nesters, so if I were to put it out every week, you'd be picking up half every week of what you could wait the second week to pick up a full car.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: You don't have to bring the card out if it's not.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's. And that's what I'm getting at. Will, we know in the reports that you might give.
Speaker 0: Us, we.
Speaker 1: Are.
Speaker 5: Are people putting it out every week or are they not? Because I would suggest that if they're not, then it was pointless then to do weekly pick up if people are still putting it out every other week.
Speaker 6: So part of the modernization of our system that we're going through right now is also adding some software, some software that will be in the truck so we can we'll know when we've picked up the car. We're going to know we're going to be collecting a lot more data. Now, we're not currently weighing weighing the bin. So we're not going to be able to tell it. You know, we're not going to have that type of data, but we will know the number of households that use the weekly recycling. We'll know the number of households that use compost. And that's the more data that we'll have and that will report in our we.
Speaker 5: Will know that when a truck picks up a car, does it somehow register that I've done one, I've done two, I've done three. So if we have 100 customers and they only pick up from 75, we would know that.
Speaker 6: That's information that the drivers collect. So that is part of the information. And since we're moving to a billing system, we're going to have to have more data and more data on our customers. And and that is part of the system that we're putting together right now. But I did just want to bring up that point that we do hear a lot from the community asking for weekly recycling. We understand council hear.
Speaker 7: Is a lot.
Speaker 6: From people wanting weekly recycling. And our number one issue in a lot of areas is what to do with the carts. And I think the idea of having one more cart in a lot of areas would be problematic.
Speaker 1: Or one.
Speaker 5: Larger cart, which might suffice. I think I have a 65 gallon purple cart and I've had it filled enough that they'd prop the lid up. And so maybe a 95 gallon cart for me would suffice every other week, probably for most households, probably for Rosario and Margaret for. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. That's why I have.
Speaker 0: Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President I wanted to just clarify one very important point that came up in the questions and answers from Councilwoman Ortega. So I think she was asking some questions about Slide 16 from the appendix about actually I'm sorry, slides 17. And in passing she mentioned that there would be $12 million left over in return to the general fund, but that is not what this slide shows. So I wanted to ask if someone from the team can please refer to the fact that so so it's a 25. I'm going to ask the question and then ask you to two to fill in. But it's a out of $25 million, about 13 ish million is programed in this slide that will stay in the general fund in 2023, which means $12 million doesn't show up as a line item, but it is not true that those dollars are unspoken for. So can you please talk about why those $12 million are staying in the general fund and what they will be used for and how we're going to work through that? And you know, if we need someone else from the team to answer as well. But can you just clarify that, please?
Speaker 1: But yes, Councilwoman, so the $12 million are not programs because they are identified for the affordability program. And so because we do not know the extent of which households will ultimately pursue the affordability program, we're not going to shortchange it by putting a budget number in here right now. So what you see as a remainder is, a, to be determined. And once we know what our applications are, where we end up with the affordability program, we'll know what dollars and to what extent are available for repurposing. At that point, those dollars would be eligible to be repurposed. Councilwoman, does that address the question?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. And, you know, the councilwoman can chime back in as well. But can I just follow up with one more question, which is that so to the to the to the idea that we should just make compost free or that we should just provide, you know, improved. Services without this fee. I just want to clarify, is there extra money in the budget to do either of those things?
Speaker 1: No, Councilwoman, there is not.
Speaker 7: So what would have to happen if we wanted to do these magical things and provide more services with no fee?
Speaker 1: We'd have to expand our appropriation to solid waste management within the daily budget.
Speaker 7: Okay, so there is no extra money sitting there waiting to be used for these free services if we were to go a different direction.
Speaker 1: No, there is not.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: If I may add, on the flip side, if we then create a new fee, then we're adding that much more. We're adding we're creating $33 million. And then you're saying of this 25 that we collect today, then 12 million of that is what's remaining. But part of that will go towards the affordability program and, you know, the billing system and the education and the things that are on this slide.
Speaker 1: There are onetime costs that are associated with what you see on this slide in front of you right now. Moving forward, there will be costs to the General Fund for Solid Waste Management that are outside of those services that we provide to households. So for example, they keep Denver beautiful programing. Councilman Flynn, I appreciate your interest in that program. Our graffiti program, where we keep the city clean and free of graffiti, as well as the affordability program. And so you see those costs continue to be a general fund supported item moving forward with the passing of volume based trash passing
Speaker 0: . But if you look at slide 31, slide 31 takes you from 2023 all the way to 2030 and shows what your admin costs are, your waste collection vehicles. And we go from 33.5 million in 2023, up to 38 point. 2.3 in 2030.
Speaker 1: So those are.
Speaker 0: Ongoing costs continuing to be added to the program.
Speaker 1: Specific to the special revenue fund. And so these don't these costs do not include the affordability program. They do not include our graffiti program. They do not include I keep them or beautiful program they don't include.
Speaker 0: So these are all part of the new program, the new fund that is is being collected from the fees to continue trash service of regular trash recycling and composting.
Speaker 1: And education and other components that are related to volume based price. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmembers Kenny and Ortega. I had a couple of questions, Adam. Are there requirements within city buildings within this building, within the Taylor building in Montebello? Are there requirements for there to be composting offered in those city facilities?
Speaker 1: I'll defer to Jessica Lally for that question.
Speaker 6: We do provide service to city facilities, including fire stations, municipal buildings and libraries.
Speaker 0: So there is currently composting available at the Taylor Building. For city employees who have their offices within the area. Taylor Building Is there composting currently provided?
Speaker 6: As those buildings reach out to the Solid Waste Team? We've expanded our services to them. And so I'm not sure if that building has it, but any buildings that have reached out to us, like Denver Human Services or libraries, we've added compost to their collection.
Speaker 0: Can you tell me the number out of all of the city buildings that are city assets, how many of those currently today provide composting? I can send recycling.
Speaker 6: Certainly get that to you.
Speaker 0: But you don't have it now.
Speaker 6: Not at this moment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I will let you know right now that there is no composting service unless I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure I haven't at our own city owned facilities in Montebello. And so that is concerning, but we'll go ahead and move along. How long has composting been available in the city and county of Denver? What was that year again that we started it? Yeah.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry. I'm just looking for a note. But we believe that the city started the composting program as a pilot that was grant funded in 2014 and then it was moved to the city budget, I believe, in 2016 or 17.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we.
Speaker 7: Didn't see the budget as it.
Speaker 6: Was at the moment.
Speaker 7: That the ordinance was passed to create a special revenue fund to expand the composting service beyond the pilot stage.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we'll even give you a 2016, 2017. How many customers do you currently have in the Montebello community who are participating in composting?
Speaker 7: I like to just go.
Speaker 6: For that data. It's very few. Most importantly.
Speaker 0: It's 126 customers in Montebello. Do you have how many are participating paying for composting currently in Green Valley Ranch?
Speaker 6: I apologize. I need to pull up the data. Okay.
Speaker 0: It's 294. My follow up question is if composting has been available since 2014, 15, 16, 17. Where was the marketing plan around it? Who was the company that either Kasper or Dotti or Solid Waste? Who was the marketing company that we had an RFP with a contract with to market and increase those composting customers? Who was that company?
Speaker 6: Well, I would only say that.
Speaker 7: Kessler does not have a contract for that.
Speaker 0: Okay. So cancer doesn't have any marketing company to increase and provide education to constituents to increase these numbers. Dottie, who is the vendor that you used for marketing and outreach income person?
Speaker 1: I don't have that information about what we'd have to look back historically to see what we leveraged and specifically who we leveraged or if we did that service in-house for marketing.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate the answers to those questions. The public hearing is closed. We're going to move to our Amendments Council member Herndon. We're going to go ahead and start with your motion to amend. We don't have Councilmember Hearn. Councilmember Cashman. Can I get you to go ahead and read or make the motion? We're on page seven.
Speaker 3: Yes, I've got you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. I move that council bill 22 685 be amended in the following particulars. One on page nine, line 27, strike section eight reporting the manager of transportation and infrastructure shall report in writing to City Council by February one, 2025 and every two years thereafter regarding the operation of the program and replace that with Section eight, a new Section 48 of Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code shall be created by adding the language as follows Section 40, Dash 49 reporting the manager of Transportation Infrastructure shall report in writing to City Council by February one, 2025, and every two years thereafter regarding the operation of the program.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you very much, Councilman Cashman, for making that motion. Yes, Councilman, do you.
Speaker 1: Have a.
Speaker 5: Copy of the item? I don't have a copy digitally or or on paper.
Speaker 0: Is that available to us? Mark Page, I believe, sent out the script for the meeting tonight a little bit after four.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: We're on page seven. And so it would be the exact language there. We're going to go ahead and go to Councilmember Herndon for we're going to go to questions or comments on this amendment, and we're going to first go to Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for reading that. As I said before, this is just a technical amendment that codifies the reporting requirement for Ms.. So this is more than likely the easiest amendment we're going to have tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Agreed. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Flynn, did you have any follow up questions? Are you good? Okay. All right. Very good. I don't have any other members in the queue for questions or comments on this amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to Council Bill 22, Dash 685, please. CdeBaca, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Sandoval.
Speaker 4: By Torres. I. I. Black tie, Clark.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 4: Sorry. Flynn. I Herndon. I Haines. I Cashman. I can each i.
Speaker 1: Ortega, i.
Speaker 4: Sawyer, i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, to close the voting and announce results. 13 813 IES Council Bill 20 2-685 has been amended. Councilmember Ortega, your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. Council Members I move to amend Council Bill 20 2-0685 as follows On page six Line one strike article and Ad Perin article. If the adjustment results in an increase that is less than or equal to 5% of the fee, if the adjustment proposed by the manager results in an increase that is greater than 5% of the fee. City Council approval fee ordinance shall be required. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. It has been moved and we've got a second there. Questions and or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Councilmember Ortega. So the purpose of this amendment, it would limit the authority of the manager to increase fees beyond 5% and instead would require require city council for any increase exceeding 5%. For example, based on the fees in 48 dash, 40 to 5% be an increase exceeding $0.46 per month on the smallest bean and a dollar six per month on the largest bean would require city council approval. So that's just a breakdown of what those numbers would look like. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. We've got a few members in the queue here. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Madam President. I just, I guess, need a little clarification about how this amendment, if approved, would function in the real world. Right. So if there is a situation where like this year, the cost of doing business has gone up at least 8% and potentially is anticipated by the end of the year to be looking at more like 11% if the cost of the trash service passes and and is at that same 11% rate and council says no to the to the proposed more than 5% growth in the fee. How then are we going to pay for.
Speaker 6: The trash service?
Speaker 0: Is that question for me or you asking that of the folks from Dottie?
Speaker 7: What I'm asking you, I mean, I guess but it was probably a question for financier Dottie at the end of the day, like, I just don't understand.
Speaker 0: First of all, this is based on them having to come back and show that there's justification for an increase.
Speaker 7: Sure, I understand.
Speaker 0: And they they can do that below the 5%. What this is asking for is anything above the 5%. And just to be clear, this was a an amendment that was proposed last week. It was shared with me by one of our colleagues, actually, a couple of our colleagues. But when mine didn't pass and I didn't vote for it, they chose not to support it tonight, and you'll probably hear from them. So this was, again, a compromise to what I was bringing forward, which I thought was a compromise that was asking for the fees to be approved by council in general. But this is making that 5% threshold a requirement where council would then have approval authority, very similar to what we do today with other fees that we still have that power over some of those over time. Council has abdicated that authority to the manager of agency.
Speaker 7: Sure. I totally understand the purpose of it and the intent of it. I am asking for clarity around what will happen, like not in theory, what will actually happen if this amendment passes to the trash services because it's a fee. So it has to be zero. It has to be revenue neutral. So like, is there a I guess I'm asking Finance or Dottie or Kaser? I'm not sure who I'm asking. There are a lot of hands on the.
Speaker 4: Pot, but like, what is the what's the plan for.
Speaker 7: If worst case scenario this were to pass and it were above a 5% price growth and council said no.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Adam Phipps with Dottie. What I will say is we're proposing the amendment. We're proposing the ordinance without that cap so that we don't end up in that scenario. That's where Dottie's position is on this.
Speaker 7: Got it. Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Sawyer. Councilwoman Greenwich.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President. I will just pick up with my comments where we're left off. I will not be supporting this amendment tonight. We always are exploring ways to find common ground with colleagues. And we made that attempt last week and we didn't find it. And so the amendment last week was struck down. And I would urge folks to vote no on it this week. I would like to just add a little more coloring in of the lines to add to what Director Phipps said, which is that here's here's how I see the risk. This program is required to provide essential services to residents and including things that this council has prioritized, such as education. So daily, sir, you know, a weekly service with all the bins getting picked up and education to make sure that they're used properly is really important to this council. If if the cost of providing that service requires an increase and this council because of fear of political reprisal or fear of pressure, bulks at paying for what the program costs. Then the program is faced with having to cut services or somehow find another way to compensate and make sure that the service is not compromised. That's the risk of putting this in a political process versus a technical process. I think it's important for us to monitor and use our oversight powers to make sure we read those cost of service studies. When the agency does them to make sure that they are being responsible, that they are being lean, that they are making sure that they are going to service the increases as a last resort, that they try to find efficiencies to try to find rebates from the state and grant funding and all those things they do today. They need to keep doing that and we need to stay on them. But I am I don't think it's best for us to subject an essential city service to kind of political process that could compromise it, you know, in a future in a future situation. So I will be voting no tonight, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Khanna, each Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I was supportive of the amendment. I was supportive of the amendment that launched last week that attempted to keep the power to set the rates with this council. We've abdicated and ceded.
Speaker 1: A.
Speaker 5: Lot of fees to the agencies that are now on autopilot. Oddly enough, I would cite many of the same factors that Councilwoman Kennedy just responded. But I would suggest that listening to our constituents and what they want. Is a good thing. Responding to their needs and desires is why we're up here and we shouldn't put this on autopilot. And to Councilwoman Sawyer, I think the reason the response of this council to say an 11% if there had to increase by 11% and we didn't want to do that. I think what we would have to do then is suggest to the agency that they restructure the service, that they come back to us. Perhaps it would it would be the case as I got it got out in my questioning that the recycling program isn't necessary every week. Maybe we could go back to every other week, and that would provide the savings that we wouldn't need an 11% increase. But without the pressure of having to come back to us for permission to raise the fee above 5%, that's all gone. And we don't have to respond to what our what our struggling families are saying out in the neighborhoods. They'll just get hit with a with an 11% increase in this. In the example that was that was suggested down the other end of the dais just now, I think it's a good thing that it has to come back to the council if it's over a certain amount. That's why we're up here. And so I will support this amendment. And I would ask that my colleagues do that, that they approve it also.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. CdeBaca, I. Sandoval. No.
Speaker 4: Torres. I. Black.
Speaker 3: Clark No.
Speaker 0: Schwinn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon No. Hines No.
Speaker 4: Cashman can reach me.
Speaker 0: Ortega, I. Sawyer. No, Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. Eight NIS. Five Eyes. Five Eyes. The amendment to Council Bill 20 2-685 has failed. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Looking through the script. All right I move the council bill 20 2-6 85 be amended in the following particulars on page nine, line 32. Strike January and replace with October.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. Questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment? Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. That might be the shortest amendment I've ever proposed. There are several reasons to pursue this change. The effect of it would be to push back the start to October rather than January next year. My concern is that when we were presented this in committee, we were told that in January this year there was a 35% vacancy rate. 35% of the positions in solid waste were vacant and that by the beginning of June there was down to 28%. And that's after a really remarkable, commendable period of aggressive recruitment and hiring. I think we were paying sign up bonuses where we as a $4000 to $5000, I might sign up. And so we closed we filled 7% of the open positions at that rate of hiring and council and commission. I did have a discussion about this this afternoon. And and she has some optimism about future hiring that I hope is true, but I can't rely on it. But at that rate of hiring in five months, we filled 7% of the vacant positions. It would take 20 more months to reach 100% of staffing for the current level of service, not even accounting for the 22 additional operators we need to hire to go to weekly recycling. And so one of the biggest calls and complaints we've had from constituents since January is that their their trash and recycling and compost, not so much compost, but mostly trash. And recycling has not been picked up on their new assigned day. I think Adam and our assortment is here. Still here. Thank you. I think, Art, that your folks are doing an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. When they go by my house and I happen to be home, I go out and I thank the driver for probably holding him up a little bit from completing the rounds, but I let them know that they're doing a great job under difficult conditions. I believe that by starting this program, especially weekly recycling too soon, we are setting it up to fall flat on its face and that by giving it those extra months to October rather than January, we will give them the time to do the hiring. And I would expect the department to welcome that breathing space. They probably won't admit it, but I'm hoping they feel it better that I'm doing this as a favor to them and I would ask for support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, council president. You know, with with respect to my colleague, you know, we've been in the trenches working with the department. And this to my knowledge, you have not reached out and asked for this delay. That's not something the department is asking for that we have talked this through and talk this through. There is no need to further delay coming out of committee. There were members who pushed for later implementation date and we were proposing originally, which the department was ready to to to implement that. And those members made a strong argument for that. And that's already led to the move to a January one implementation. So we've already had this conversation. We've already determined the original date put forward should be moved to January 1st for a lot of reasons that I'm not going to relitigate here. That made sense. The bill was altered to address those concerns. Further delay is not needed. It will cause additional logistical and financial issues. I've talked to the folks in the department who do this as their job. Instead of me trying to do them a favor, talked to them and heard from them. And this is sticking with the January one date is is the right way to go on this, you know, in addition to making sure that that is operationally what works and working closely with those folks. You know, we have heard tonight and we continue to talk about the urgency when it comes to the need to take action on climate. We cannot wait any longer and just pushing this out arbitrarily after we've already talked through and made a further delay and waited decades after talking about this and and years and months after continuing to talk about this to implement. I think that this is extremely detrimental for us. On top of which, pushing the implementation that then puts the implementation straddling right in the middle of when there is a new administration coming in. There will be. Change over with staffing. I think for all of those reasons and more, this is a bad idea. I will be voting no and ask my colleagues to also vote in all and vote this amendment down tonight. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I will be supporting this tonight. I think there are a number of aspects that we've talked about that I'm not going to, you know, elaborate on or be repetitive about, but I just don't believe this is baked yet. And for that reason, I will be supporting this amendment to delay the implementation. Some of us have tried to address some of the concerns that we've heard from neighbors. And overwhelmingly, the input that I have received from people that have reached out to my office have been in opposition to this. Yes, I have heard from people who support it, but overwhelmingly the people I have heard from do not support this fee. So some of us have tried to figure out how do we make sure that we're reflecting that input that we've heard from our constituents? As you know, you're all my constituents, but a lot of them are concerned about the cost implications. And at this time, when so many people are struggling with all the other things that they've been hit with as a result of of COVID and, you know, more fees and other increases yet to come with other services. And so we'll be seeing one from Parks and Rec before too long. So these are yet more fees being imposed on our our citizens. And when you look at it, you know, one household is bearing the brunt of those ongoing costs. So and this will be a cost that will be in place forever. As someone asked earlier. So it's not something we're doing just to get it ramped up and then, you know, have it on its feet and then incorporated into the general fund. It's something we're going to put in place that we can continue to raise the fees just like we did with our wastewater fees. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: I. Sandoval.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 4: Torres.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 4: Black. No.
Speaker 3: Clark No. Flynn All right.
Speaker 0: Herndon No.
Speaker 3: HINES No.
Speaker 4: Cashman Can each name Ortega? Sawyer now, madam President.
Speaker 0: I, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Nine nays for ice.
Speaker 0: Four eyes. The amendment fails. This is the Second Amendment to Council Bill 22, Dash 685, which has failed. Councilmember CdeBaca. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: And move that council bill 20 2-6 85 be amended in the following particulars on page seven Line 27 After customers add such rules and regulations shall provide for a full and automatic rebate to any owner or occupant of eligible property located in a neighborhood identified as at risk or susceptible to gentrification. In the 2016 study conducted by the Denver Economic Development and Opportunity Agency, entitled Gentrification Study Mitigating Involuntary Displacement if the owner purchased such property prior to 2013.
Speaker 0: Think, think, think, think.
Speaker 4: Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
Speaker 0: Never say to. Thank you for reading that amendment. And I see that it has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Council Member Sayed Abarca, did you want to explain it a little bit more?
Speaker 4: Yes. In 2016, we paid for and conducted a study about involuntary displacement and the study aimed at understanding our neighborhoods on a census tract basis. It deeply analyzed household income, years of ownership, years of change, and it identified our most vulnerable neighborhoods, places where gentrification had not yet occurred. Places where it had started occurring. Places where it was already completed. And so what I'm aiming to do with this amendment is protect the areas that have not yet experienced gentrification at the time of the study, its likely low experience of gentrification early stage at this point. But what we do know is that those household incomes have been steadily, deeply. And therefore, we don't need to put those owners or residents through entitlement testing. We know who they are. We know where they live. We know what they can afford based on that study that we already paid for. And it would be a conservation of resources, and it would help the residents to not have to jump through any hoops in order to obtain this rebate.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members say to Barker. Council member Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thanks, but the President just quick question for our Legislative Council is this. Allowable under TABOR because I know exemptions are not allowed under state, but the taxpayer bill of Rights under state law. So does this count as an exemption? Would this be.
Speaker 6: Legal?
Speaker 1: Thanks, councilman. So I'm not sure about TABOR does regulate in terms of whether we can exempt certain people from being able to pay the fee. TABOR does have some restrictions regarding whether it's a tax or a fee in terms of who has to pay it. Councilman said about this amendment suggesting that we had a group of people qualify for the rebate. General, at any time the government determines that one group of people is not up to something and another group of people are locked out of something. As long as that's not a protected class, they can do so for a legitimate purpose. But that classification has to be rationale added to that purpose. The problem classification, the more tenuous you make that classification the purpose. And so you risk not being rational that maybe what you're getting at from a tamer perspective that's more on what you're charging. This is about the rebate and who gets the rebate.
Speaker 7: Okay. So let me make sure I understand what you just said clearly. So, because this is a specific class of people that we know is facing pressures of gentrification and displacement, and we have the data to prove it. And we and we are considering automatically qualifying them for the rebates at 100%, not automatically exempting them from paying for the service that is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and therefore would withstand any sort of state or federal constitutional challenge to the law.
Speaker 1: Sort of. So what I'm saying is that because this is about a rebate, it's about equal protection instead of TABOR, and because this is about a rebate, what you have to do is ensure that the people that get the rebate, that that class of people is rational, pointed at the purpose of why you're giving the rebate.
Speaker 7: Okay. Is one study. Done in 2016 sufficient for us to make that determination.
Speaker 1: Whether so that's sort of up to the body, whether the group of people identified in the study should get the rebate because that furthers the purpose that the body believes that's up to the council.
Speaker 4: Okay. I would add that our entire minority business approaches and social equity licenses, those are all grounded or based on justified by a single point in time study of the demographic data. And so this would be no different. It was, in fact, the purpose of conducting this study so that we could build policies that were protective in response to this data.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And say to Baka Councilmember Kenny.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President I guess I'll just follow up with a quick question to our council based on the prior questions. If a individual has a home valued at $1 million in Westwood, would they be exempt from the fee under this amendment?
Speaker 1: Thanks. Councilman Ken Trabuco, assistant city attorney. Again, because the amendment is being specific about neighborhoods identified in the 2016 study, I'm not sure. But if statutes in 16 study did classify them as at risk and.
Speaker 6: The answer is yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. So, you know, I will just posit that the the neighborhoods in question here point to Globeville area, Swansea, Westwood and perhaps East Colfax. And so I just want to clarify. Just. Just say it back to you so that if a person owned $1,000,000 home in one of those neighborhoods that's identified in that study, they would be exempt from the fee.
Speaker 1: If the person owned if the person on a mandatory home that's identified in those neighborhoods and they purchased at home prior to 2013 then. Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 7: Even if it's worth $1,000,000.
Speaker 1: As long as it's an independent study and I gotcha.
Speaker 7: I gotcha. So let me just say the inverse then. If you are an individual who makes has a home, you know, worth, you know, the median, let's say, of 400 and some thousand dollars, aside from our momentary little bubble we're in, or you're a homeowner earning $70,000 a year, perhaps as your income and you happen to be in a neighborhood not listed, would you be exempt from the fee?
Speaker 1: That the amendment does not change the rules and regulations that Daddy may promulgate that they were given, I think gave a presentation so that I still promulgate rules and regulations that allow a rebate based on am I. So potentially, but under the language of the amendment, they wouldn't qualify under the language of the amendment.
Speaker 7: I'm just going to move your comments because they're they're together on amendments. And so let me just state that this amendment absolutely would treat two homeowners with very different incomes, the same if they are in a neighborhood. And it would actually advantage wealthy homeowners who could be exempt just because of where their houses. And would continue to have those wealthy homeowners be subsidized by more moderate income homeowners who happen to live in another neighborhood. I believe that makes us very vulnerable to a challenge of rational basis by treating similarly situated homeowners so very differently and potentially so inequitable based only on geography. I agree with the underlying goal of mitigating the impacts of this to those who are struggling to make ends meet. And I will just review what our income thresholds are. If you are a household of one earning less than $50,000, you are eligible for a rebate under this program to help you with your fees. If you are a household of three of three people and you earn less than $63,000 as a household, you are eligible for a rebate under those program. These are some of the highest income thresholds we have for an assistance program to help with some of the lowest fees and costs of any utility. These utilities cost less than Denver Water, less than Xcel, and they have much more generous rebates. And so just to be very clear, we have a mechanism built into this ordinance that mitigates the impacts to families who are struggling. We do need to find them. We do need to work with them to help make sure they're signed up. And we need to be very thorough and fund that. It's why we have a program that is funding nonprofits that are based in these very neighborhoods. That is a major target of the nonprofits we'll be partnering with to have them do the outreach as trusted partners, not government employees, not DHS staff. But these partners will be out there on the ground in communities that already know and trust them to get folks signed up for these rebates. So we are working to mitigate that in a way that is fair and equitable and will be much more likely to stand up in court than this amendment. So I do urge people to vote the amendment down, both based on the inequities it could create, as well as based on the legal risk it could put us to . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember, can each council member say to Baca.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I just wanted to point out that it does not change the rest of the proposed income eligibility program. It's in addition to it, and it does an automatic rebate to households that we already know qualify under those for those income brackets. And we know that based on the study that we did. And so we're specifically putting in the house being purchased before 2013 because when the study was conducted, if you go back and read it, what you'll see is that they assessed each census block to see how far along gentrification was. And these were areas where the census blocks suggested that gentrification had not even started yet in that particular area. And so that is why the 2013 date is important, because that means that it would be consistent with the data that we had at the time of the report. And so it would automatically give them those people their rebate without them having to jump through hoops. It does not remove the other pieces of the program. Anyone else anywhere in the city who qualifies under the income eligibility requirements could also obtain this benefit. It removes a barrier simply for people who we already have studied and know do not need to be studied again or put through any income testing processes.
Speaker 0: Thanking Council member CdeBaca. Next up, we have Council Pro-Tem Torres.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Just asking for clarification, Anshul. Is that what the language is that's drafted in front of us? Because it read as though it applied to whole neighborhoods and didn't have that discernment.
Speaker 1: That's.
Speaker 4: I can't hear people.
Speaker 1: Operating in their neighborhoods as identified in the study.
Speaker 4: Angel. Can you repeat that? I couldn't hear you on Zoom.
Speaker 1: So the answer to your question is yes, it would apply to homeowners and occupants of eligible property if they're located in a neighborhood identified in the study. So it would it would allow a rebate to people within a certain geographical area.
Speaker 4: Everyone in a geographical area, meaning the neighborhood or the census block or the property.
Speaker 1: B it would be the neighborhood as defined in the study. The study used neighborhood boundaries.
Speaker 6: Okay. If it's.
Speaker 4: If it's not able to be as specific as property. Councilman CdeBaca I get what you're.
Speaker 7: Aiming for, and if it is, if it doesn't accomplish that, it can't.
Speaker 4: Support it. I do appreciate, I think, what you're trying.
Speaker 7: To zero in on, which is making it less burdensome for.
Speaker 4: Low income households to apply to qualify for the instant rebate. And I think that's a commendable thing to try to apply to.
Speaker 7: To amend for. I just worry that it's not going.
Speaker 4: To achieve that. And looking at the study as well and some of the neighborhoods that.
Speaker 7: Are growing in displacement, vulnerability aren't even on this map yet.
Speaker 4: Westwood and Sun Valley don't even trigger on this map yet because they didn't have the data. So it also misses quite a bit. So I unfortunately, I can't support it right now.
Speaker 0: Counsel Pro Tem Torres. Next up, I have Councilmember Ortega. I just want to ask a question of our folks either from daddy or cancer. I understand the expectation is to identify organizations in these neighborhoods. We may have some areas that don't have a neighborhood eye. I'm thinking about some of the properties in Councilwoman Black's district where they might be eligible. And so part of my concern is if you're not already in the Denver human service system, it makes sense. They're going to reach out to people that are in their system, that have case managers and whatnot. That's going to be easy for them to reach those individuals. But for neighborhoods that don't have an active organization that that have affordable housing, where families that may also have some language barriers are not going to otherwise know about this. I'm a little concerned that we're going to be missing some people. So is there another way besides just community based nonprofits in Denver, Human Services trying to get this word out? I'm hoping that, you know, there will be some firing with various languages because depending on where you're at in our geography, languages vary. And so what what are some of those other approaches to address this so that we don't have people finding themselves in a situation where. They just didn't know about this. They're getting leans on their property. You know, that's the extreme right, which is what we don't want to see happen. But if we can figure out how to do all of that education upfront, and that's why that piece becomes really, really critical at the front end. You know, some of us would have liked to see that before we just adopt this. And I get through probably wanting the fees to pay for some of that cost. But help me understand how else we reach some of these families.
Speaker 6: Certainly. Thank you, Councilwoman Jessica Lolly, daddy's project manager. So in addition to the community based organizations doing that outreach for us, we will also be mailing a number of things directly to the home, you know, communicating the new fee, expanded services. The affordability program will absolutely be a highlight of that. Educational materials are all going to be provided at least English and Spanish. We have translation services for whatever whatever the other languages needed are.
Speaker 0: So will there be robust folks available either through 311 that can have direct contact to the program so that as people have language issues or more questions, that if they're not understanding the flier, we have people that will be able to answer the questions at the other end.
Speaker 6: Our three on one staff will be fully equipped to answer and think about this program and direct them to the right place for help.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Please see the Baca I. Sandoval.
Speaker 4: No, Torres. No. Black. No.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: HERNDON No, no. Cashman When can each man.
Speaker 0: Ortega I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer.
Speaker 0: Madam President, may, madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results? Ten days. Three eyes, three eyes. The amendment to Council Bill 20 2-685 has failed. Councilmember Cashman We need a motion to publish as amended, please.
Speaker 3: And with the Council Bill 20 2-0685 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 20 2-685 is on the floor for final passage as amended. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-20685. Council Member Clerk Thank you.
Speaker 3: Council President First of all, I say thank you to the whole team who worked on this. So many people across Dottie and Castor and the entire city and the mayor's office who worked really hard on this for a really long time. So I want to say thank you so much. Thank you to the members the members of council who worked directly on this. For those of you who supported the direct work on this along the way, and for the ones who have just been real champions for waste, diversion and sustainability up here on on council. And I also want to thank you I know we don't have a lot of people in green still left without talked most of you but I really want to say thank you to everyone who came tonight virtually took time out of their day to come speak. And to those of you who are still hanging around here and thank you so much for for being here tonight. In the fall of 2019, we put together a citywide task force that was charged with putting forth an action plan for how we tackle climate change as a city. We knew that that work would not be easy. We knew that the recommendations that would come forward would touch pretty much every aspect of life in our city. And we knew that it was critical to have a plan and to start enacting that plan immediately. In the aftermath of that task force, we took bold action. We acted as councils before us, had not and stood in that space. We chose to rise to the challenge of tackling this emergency head on. But with that action, we only brushed on the surface of what we were called to do. In that plan, it's not enough to turn and to celebrate the first bucket of water that we took to put out the fire while the building still burns. We have to continue to do the hard work each and every day until the fire is put out. Tonight, we have in front of us another recommendation from that task force action plan. That also was a recommendation from all the other places. I won't relitigate that slide, but from that plan is what I'm focused on. We rose to the challenge. The task was put in front of us while drafting a proposal to protect those who are least able to pay through a first in the nation affordability program that is more robust than any affordability program for any other program in the city. Additionally, this proposal will literally divert tons and tons of material from the landfill or otherwise sit and produce methane for hundreds of years. This program will ensure that we are not needlessly burying the 75% of our waste dream that could be reuse and recycle and burying it in the ground and instead make sure that we're being responsible stewards of those resources for generations to come. We can do all of that through this program that costs a fraction of what citizens in any other city in Colorado pay. We can't stand by and watch while we continue to use materials at an unsustainable rate and contribute to the warming of the planet that has already led to droughts, fires and human suffering across the planet and right here at home in Denver. It's irresponsible for us to throw things out that can be reused and recycled, and the city cannot continue to have these reusable and recyclable and compostable materials to the landfill where we are then complicit in the destruction of our home. Every city that has implemented a plan like this has seen their diversion rate go up. People recycle and compost more when the recycling and the composting are free. And when you're held accountable to pay for what you send to the landfill, nearly every other city in the United States has a paid trash service, and our fees are a fraction of what residents have to pay in these cities. And as I already mentioned, we have a robust rebate program for low income folks. So this will be one of the most affordable trash utilities in America. We must take bold action on climate change. We cannot afford to continue to bury reusable, compostable and recyclable, recyclable materials in the ground when we have the opportunity to reuse and recycle them. And the time for action is now. I'll be voting yes on this proposal tonight. And I implore all my colleagues on this council to please vote yes as well. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Herndon thinking i'm president. I want to echo Councilman Clark's sentiments, thanking all those who came and spoke and spoke on this issue. I did want to give a shout out to Madalyn, the rising 10th grader at East. I wanted to applaud her for coming out. I love. I love when our young people come out and show share their passion for the issues.
Speaker 1: That are going to impact them longer than just about anyone else in the room.
Speaker 3: No one here is denying the challenge that in us as a city need to step forward and commit bold action. That's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing. Have we done all.
Speaker 1: That we can before we take the easy.
Speaker 3: Way out? In the midst of a global pandemic, gas prices rising, everyone's wallets shrinking. Should we as a government be a little more sensitive to the plight of our everyday citizens? If there was no other way to move forward to do this, I would wholeheartedly be encouraging. Like, absolutely, let's move forward. But I sat here and asked us, what have we done as a city to educate? And there was no answer. Yes, 1 to 2% incrementally over time. I do think that's because people have become more aware of the importance of sustainability, not anything we have done as a city. So yeah, we're taking that as a reason to only go to the example that's going to hit people the hardest in their pocketbooks. Because I think about Denver water use only what you need. Every time I open up my bill, I see that that is stuck with me. I think about that when the thing is running and I certainly turn it off because I'm not using anymore. That's education and it does make a difference. We've done it as a city to be a smart ass parks and RECs campaign to encourage and educate people. We have not done education. People say education doesn't work. What education have we done? Nine. I would first want to do that. First, you demonstrate that that doesn't work. I will be your champion for the next more important step. But I'm not suggesting we don't do anything. I'm a no on this bill because I don't believe we have done the outreach that we should do first when it comes to that. But while we're waiting, let's do something crazy. Let's stop charging for composting. Let's make recycling weekly. I heard a conversation about, hey, what about the cost? This body approves the cost. We don't have to wait till budget season. I would approve a supplemental next week. To do that, to cover the cost of composting and weekly recycling. You would have my support because that's not impacting the people of the city even a greater burden than they're going through right now. Let's do the work that we should be doing first, as well as to add a new setting and education. And education. Some catchy slogan Don't waste your waste. Something that just sticks higher. Company who are a lot smarter than I am. And let's do that before we suddenly hit people with this big. Because you can't do it on your own. I just find it. I cannot believe that we as a city couldn't do it the better way. I think it's irresponsible for us not to go that route as opposed to just we're now going to charge you for trash. So I encourage my colleagues to vote no and then turn around and work with Dotty to find ways to find funding to make composting free. Recycling weekly or other ways that don't impact.
Speaker 1: Member citizens in their pocketbook.
Speaker 3: I'll be a no, and I encourage my colleagues to do that as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Madam President. I just want to echo the sentiments of both of my council members in saying thank you for all of your hard work. You know, whether or not this passes tonight, you all have done an extraordinary job of community outreach, of pivoting and making changes based on councilmember requests. And I'm really appreciative of all of your all of the work that you guys have done in a lot of different areas. So thank you very much for that. And personally, I can speak to the conversations I have had with District five residents about this. I regularly receive requests from my residents for weekly recycling. And when we first started talking about this, gosh, I think it was like maybe 18 months ago. I mean, it was really like four years ago before I was even elected, but 18 months ago that we really started to kind of have conversations about potentially moving this forward . And so, you know, I sent I sent a survey every year to my community members to 20, I think like 4000, 24,000 households with a survey asking, you know, what are your priorities? What do you want to see your representative advocate for? And I will tell you, climate change issues and addressing climate change concerns was number four, behind only crime and safety, traffic and infrastructure and housing affordability, climate and safety. And this was over a thousand responses that we received. That's pretty extraordinary. And so I am in support of this tonight. Is it perfect legislation? No. But offering free composting, offering weekly recycling, offering an affordability program in recognition of communities that are struggling every day just to make ends meet right now offering. This is thoughtful legislation in a way that we sometimes don't.
Speaker 4: See thoughtful.
Speaker 7: Legislation. This has been vetted. It is extraordinarily thoughtful legislation, and I am absolutely in support of it and very grateful for all of that outreach and work that you guys did to get this done. So. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 3: I thank you. Council President. Councilmember Herndon, you are wasting your branding talent by being here on council. Since Councilmember Herndon gave a shout out to someone in the audience. I would also give a shout out to Jasmine Barkow, who sat right close to where Evan Dreier is now. I first learned of Pei's. You throw from eco cycling, specifically Jasmine back in 2017. I have been aware of this topic here in Denver since 2017. So Councilmember Sawyer's points is before I was even a candidate. Let's do it. I'm so happy to be here today where we can actually vote on this. We can have the discussion. We can have a vote. So I came to Colorado and here's my prepared statement. I came to Colorado for nonprofit start up, and I stayed for that rugged outdoor lifestyle. That's right. I stayed in Colorado because of access to our lovely planet. My first stop was in Boulder when I lived in a single family home. The trash bin was so small that effectively had to be recycled to ensure that my waste left the home each week. So I was shocked to learn that Denver had a deplorable deplorably low diversion rate. So many of us care about our relationship with the Earth, but for some reason that relationship ends when it comes to trash. Some of this is possibly because of the disconnect between waste and where it goes. It's an operational feat that our city hall is a way trash for hundreds of thousands of people each week. It's a logistical marvel that bins get collected like clockwork, even if we miss collections by a day or two. The sheer size of the engine required is impressive. But our relationship, our personal relationship with trash ends, when we put it in the bin, we don't see the landfills. We don't see the impact of trash for a planet or a wildlife. I think those organizations that are helping with outreach and education now, because we're recently getting more awareness about what happens to our trash. I'm excited that this particular program will help Denver kids with additional education. So how can we address climate change? As MISMO said, human behavior is difficult to change. So it's an important it's important that we align our city services in a way that encourages people to do the right thing. There are many of us who want to do the right thing, but currently can't because of our city's limitation. I want to compost. I could pay extra and and I actually sometimes use my neighbor's compost because we I live in a high rise with 55 units. And I think I don't know, at least a quarter of us have composting as well. But wouldn't it be better with economies of scale if we just had it on a more systemic level? But then there are also some of us who don't currently want to change waste collection. But a systemic change can help those folks understand what we that we can help our planet and still live a healthy and reasonably trouble free life. I do want to touch more specifically on concerns in District ten. Perfect ten residents have a concern that's prevalent in our district since the vast majority of my constituents live in large multi-family buildings. Effectively, as a couple of people have already said, District ten residents pay for trash collection but do not benefit from it. A lot of District ten folks are the people who are subsidizing the fees for the single family residents and for small unit buildings. This has been in multiple testimonies tonight, including from one single family homeowner who who believes it's unfair that that this person benefits from a system that others subsidize but cannot use. At the end of the day, we must do everything we can to save our habitability on our planet. Yes, this bill doesn't apply to 100% of all of Denver. Still, I would far prefer to move forward with 60% of our city, then act on 0%. Also, regarding the other ways we can help, we could help our planet. Let's do those two. Passing. This doesn't mean we can't immediately focus on addressing those other causes of greenhouse gases. And we are working on on other things like mitigating transportation's detrimental effect on our climate. Like the 50 to 80 trail and shared streets. Shared streets to get people out of cars entirely. Thank you for working on that study or EB incentives or more in the infrastructure or encouraging development that creates 15 minute neighborhoods so car trips can be limited or eliminated. We can, I would say, rock walk, but I'm going to say we can roll and chew gum at the same time. We can do this. We can do transportation work. We can do all the things at the same time. So I'll be voting yes for this. I hope my colleagues do as well. And happy St Patrick's Day.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilor Pro-Tem.
Speaker 7: Torres.
Speaker 4: Thanks the president. And just a huge thanks to all the.
Speaker 7: Speakers tonight and everybody who's been engaged.
Speaker 6: As we've been.
Speaker 7: Navigating this through committee. One of the speakers tonight pointed to a pretty key issue.
Speaker 4: That those who can't afford this should pay for it. Eventually, we'll all pay. But next time, it won't be about money.
Speaker 7: That that really hit home for me.
Speaker 4: We can't keep waiting on this. I appreciate the reality that Brian brought to the discussion that.
Speaker 7: We may have to adjust and accommodate.
Speaker 4: Over a few years.
Speaker 7: Everything to extending an adjustment.
Speaker 4: This proposal has made great strides to not overburden low income households in a way that I haven't seen before in a steady program or fee based structure. Denver's bigger, and it has just a huge growing divide. Those who can pay should pay. My grandmother passed away last month. She was on a fixed income, Social Security income. She would have qualified for the full 100% instant rebate. So this program started tomorrow and she was alive. She would experience no change from today. Our lowest income households will have options, but it does put a huge onus.
Speaker 7: On the city to ensure that.
Speaker 4: They are not having to jump through major hoops to figure it out. The median household income in District three for Villa Park was just over 38,000. Westwood 34,000. Lincoln Park 34,000. And Valverde 35,000. Perhaps half of these neighborhoods will qualify, and we need to make sure that they get signed up correctly and appropriately. And because I remember I remember correctly when composting was first rolled out, it actually wasn't available in our district. So it isn't a surprise that we have some of the lowest numbers. But what it does not mean is that it's not something we don't care about in our district or that we would struggle to adjust to and champion.
Speaker 7: We weren't given the early.
Speaker 4: Opportunity to do that. I think as a city we've definitely dropped the ball. On encouraging composting when it was made available citywide or outreach needs major work everywhere, though not just in this program area, and it's honestly where community based organizations have stepped in. Groundwork, Denver revision and perhaps have been more successful. What I don't want to see, Dottie, is that we lean on our.
Speaker 7: CBOs to help the city.
Speaker 4: In things that are as is our responsibility. Signing up rebate, qualifying households. I think they can be more successful than.
Speaker 7: Us in engaging on deep.
Speaker 4: Educational efforts. But environmental stewardship is not a new concept in District three or community cares deeply about environmental justice and and wants to step up to that plate. I think avoiding this only further protects households that can pay $9 a month but doesn't want to. So I'd rather have a more sophisticated system and not charge our lowest income homes. And I think this accomplishes that.
Speaker 7: I will be supporting tonight and I also support knowing that.
Speaker 4: The outreach that we have to do is significant.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I couldn't hear over that echo. If I could just take 1/2 to say something I should have said at the start of the meeting for folks who are in the room, have been here for a long time, they might have noticed the doors to the chamber. I just wanted to point out that late last year we named this room for the late councilwoman Cathy Reynolds, the longest serving council member on this body. And just over I guess over the weekend or before Friday, they painted her name on the door. This is the Cathy Reynolds City Council chamber. And I just want to make note of that. Thank you. I should have said at the beginning, but first of all, on this, I want to I want to dispel a false dichotomy that could easily get baked into the discussion unless we push back on it. Supporters of this proposal believe that it is needed in order to increase Denver's diversion rate from the landfill. And that creates that that a fee is needed to increase the diversion rate. And that creates a false impression that if you don't support the fee, then you must not support increasing diversion from the landfill. That is untrue. All of us who will end up opposing this program the based on the fee. We also believe that we need to increase diversion. We simply believe that the fee is not a necessary tool to achieve that, that in fact, it is a deleterious factor to our cost burden households. Until and unless, as Councilman Herndon said, we do the public education that has never adequately been done. Repeal the compost fee. Provide 95 gallon recycling cards to our households by default rather than the smaller ones. No wonder people want weekly recycling their fill in the smaller carts given the bigger cart. It costs less money, lowers our carbon footprint, and doesn't burden our struggling families with higher costs to live in this city. I disagree with one of the speakers who said that if we oppose this, we must want the status quo. We don't want change. We do want improvement. We just don't find that the fee is required to do that, especially at this time. But if we go ahead and institute the fee, followed by robust education, mandating diversion through that initiative that's on the ballot, mandating diversion through large from large multi-family commercial businesses, we will end up with a higher diversion rate, but and some folks will declare victory by giving credit to the fee, when in fact the real reason will be the changes that will be made by the Citizens Initiative should it pass to mandate a diversion from the biggest contributors to the waste stream, which is large multi-family, commercial and construction demolition. Also, with regard to the many remarks we heard about the large multifamily subsidizing single family and small multifamily, I need to make something very, very clear about the nature of this town. The portrayal of single family households as being affluent may be true in some neighborhoods, but in southwest Denver and I suspect in some of the other districts of which I'm not overly familiar in southwest Denver, they tend to be much more humble. We have some we have some pretty high valued homes in some areas of my district, but they tend to be much more humble. I've been in Margaret's home. I've been in Rosario's home in Brentwood. They came down here from Brentwood and 1940s, postwar neighborhood, wood frame bungalows that very well could be ground zero for gentrification. Part two. They came down to testify about the hardship this will cause them as fixed income seniors. They are not among Denver's affluent. Many of whom in fact, do live in luxury multifamily developments. They live in high rises downtown and elsewhere. So let's not make this about class warfare, please. There are poor households in many of our single family neighborhoods. As Councilwoman Torres just outlined in her district, just as there are wealthy households in multifamily neighborhoods and high rise condos in the modern luxury apartments in this town. So let's let's be clear on that. And even with that inadequate public education on this, many of our customers in the residential trash program already are doing what we ask of them. My constituents have expressed frustration to me that after recycling sometimes with two bins and composting, they're going to be charged now after doing the right thing. I've heard from seniors who put out their trash cards only once, only once every several.
Speaker 1: Weeks.
Speaker 5: Because they generate so little and recycle so much. It's not an incentive to do better if you're doing all that you can and you still have to pay. There is no opt out here. I've had constituents who have been doing what we asked of them tell me that they're now going if they're going to be charged for the black card, no matter what they do, they might as well just toss everything in it and not even bother recycling or composting. A few weeks ago in committee, I showed my slideshow tours of the apartments and commercial dumpsters in my district. They were overflowing with more than half of the waste in them being recyclable or compostable. I cannot ask the people who already are largely doing the right thing by filling one or two recycle bins to pay up to 252 bucks a year. While we are not mandating diversion from the 82% of the market that throws such an enormous amounts of needless waste into the landfill. I cannot ask people who are struggling with eight and a half percent inflation. $5 a gallon gas. The prospect of higher utility bills through Excel's upcoming time of day pricing, plus more fees potentially on this November's ballot to pay up to $252 a year. For this, large families with lots of kids will be hit the hardest. I believe this is a terrible thing that we're doing tonight to the struggling families of this city. Most of them are already doing the right thing with recycling. And if we remove the fee from composting, more would join them. We often talk up here about how expensive it is to live in this city. Yet here we are, adding to the cost burden for many of my struggling families. My vote tonight is with them. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Let me start a thank Ms.. Attention, Ms.. CdeBaca, for being here. And I wanted to comment that no matter how this go goes or what you hear or how individuals vote, I believe your request for a heart is is taking place in all of us. I know. I know it is with me. And I've talked to almost everybody on the dais and I believe it is with them. I have. I'll thank Dottie and Casa.
Speaker 5: And the mayor's office.
Speaker 3: And all my colleagues, just about. I have struggled with this vote as much as any I've had on city council. That said, I want to be clear that I do not struggle with the science. I believe that climate change is not only an existential threat, but a clear and present danger. We're not trying to ward off its effect. Its effects are already upon us. We see it with ever increasing high temperature swings. The intensity of our storms are forest fires. The flooding is a new to to us. I spent. If you don't think climate change is upon us. I spent several days this past week at the Colorado Municipal League conference and spoke to the police chief in La Habra, a 900 person municipality in the San Luis Valley, spoke with the city manager of Alamosa and he was the mayor of Kersey out on our Eastern Plains and talking to them about not having enough water. I spoke with our friends in Boulder County about the fires and the devastation they're trying to recover from. And then I sat and spoke with our colleagues from Denver about our air that is is falling behind clean air guidelines on a far too regular basis. That said, I certainly do struggle with adding a fee to the program being proposed. I don't believe that we will have the full cadre of drivers that we need when this rolls out. We won't have all the bins on implementation day. We have not put forward the education that we need to put forward. There is no question that we have pitfalls that need to be addressed. The our financial situation, our economy is having historic problems. I pay the same gas prices y'all pay. I pay the same increase in grocery fees and all that. But the news about climate change gets equally as bleak every day. The studies. Our science is becoming more and more urgent. The time frame for for mitigating climate change is getting shorter and shorter and shorter. One of my colleagues I have respect for my colleagues, but my good friend, Councilman Flynn, spoke at one of our last sessions about the small percentage of change that Denver will make in the greenhouse gases in the worldwide atmosphere. If we pass this program and I never do math on the fly, but I'll trust his math. But while Denver's reduction in global greenhouse gases may be a small percentage related to what the world must do, it will be 100% of what we can do in reducing our landfill contributions for 180,000 Denver households. If people participate as ardently as they can in Denver, we're not an island. You know, I certainly saw this at the CMO conference. Denver is high profile. In our state, it's our high profile in our country and we're nationally recognized. So while our individual contribution may be renewed on one level, people are going to follow us. Whatever we do, we see it. And we saw it recently in the gun bills that we passed and watched our friends in the front range follow us. If we move forward with this bill, people will follow us and our contribution to reduce climate change will be magnified if we fail to lead. If we fail to act, it will give justification for some people to not act. And again, we reduce our efforts to control climate change. And. I know that again, as has been emphasized, it's going to be a rocky ride. I believe it's going to be a rocky ride rolling this out. I do. I don't believe it's going to be smooth. It reminds me a few years ago some lives in Juneau, Alaska, and he got sick. And my daughter and I, right at the beginning of the pandemic, had to fly up there. If you have ever flown into Juneau, Alaska, on a good day, it'll get your attention or scare the pants out of you. It was bad weather. It was snowing and we were bouncing and we had to get there. And I feel the same urgency about the climate. We got to get there. The people I talked to around the state of Colorado, this is not something we can delay. I think I don't want to carry on too long. In short, I think it we're serving our citizens better. By acting now, then waiting a year or two years. We don't know what our timeframe is. As I was talking with one of our colleagues who will go nameless at the conference and we we were talking about getting older. And I think it applies to this discussion. And this fellow's a golfer. And he said, yeah, you know, you know, you're on the back nine. You just don't know what hole you're on. And I believe that's where we are in climate change. And everything that I read tells me we're heading towards 16, 17 and 18. We do not have time to mess around. I think we're better served by passing this. The pain there is definitely going to be pain for some of our families. There's no question. I'm not going to minimize that. I'm not going to minimize the impact. But if if we wait and think and think of the economic impact we're all going to feel when Colorado ski areas don't have the snow and they're worried about it. I talked to people from Breckenridge. They're worried about the declining snowpack. And when the tourist dollars stop flowing in to to our general fund, what's the pressure going to be on our families then? Like I say, I have not heard I disagree with some of my colleagues. I have not heard anything set up here that I think is is is silly or not worth consideration for sure. But after a great deal of consideration, I will be supporting this bill. I will be all over Dottie to get those drivers. I mean, we're all in this together. It's for real. I've got a bet with Mr. May here. He's going to owe me dinner, and I will guarantee that. But, I mean, we're all going to need to pitch in. The education has got to be there. And the last thing I wanted to I'm not going to call out but call on is our mayor. We happen to have a mayor who is. A spectacular speaker. If you have not heard him at the annual Martin Luther King event, he will get your attention. He is a great cheerleader. You'll see him. If you are out there at the AB celebration, he will get you riled up. He needs to step up and be our voice. You know, those of us who are somewhere around my age will remember when Jimmy Carter, first person I ever heard of that they cared about climate change , you know, put on a sweater and turn your thermostat down. And people did. And people did. And I keep saying last thing, I promise this will probably, probably be. But as to what is the motivation? You know, we. I like to guard the lawns to be green. But Denver water, as Mr. Khan said, changed from flat rate to charging for what you use. And so we figured out a way to not use so much. We'd like to be warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer, but we pay more. To excel. So we figured out a way to do that. You know, we want to eat better at the grocery stores, but we have a budget and we figured out a way to do that. I remember before climate change was ever mentioned, my father was all over us. Turn the lights off and turn the heat down to keep the build down. Okay. And I believe that that motivation will work. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cashman, Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I commend everyone who spent time working on this issue and climate crisis issues in general. This is something I'm very passionate about. I'd like to thank the Elders, specifically those who spoke tonight, as well as elders whose ancestors were probably the more harmonious with the planet of all of us. We don't often get diverse perspectives on an issue that's been so dominated by conversations rooted in white savior ism and is so deeply rooted in colonization and capitalism generally. I speak to you as someone who spent many years trying to convince environmentalists that environmental justice is different and will be the only way we can heal our planet . We're a country that was once stewarded by indigenous people who lived in harmony or non exploitative relationship with our mother Mother Earth. When this land was stolen to extract its resources in service, in service of capitalist profit, our ancestors were punished and killed for their spiritual and practical relationship with this planet. Our planet presented only one opportunity to colonizers and capitalists, and that was profit. From living in harmony with the land. My ancestors were forced onto the most poisoned land among us due to others dis harmonious relationships with the land. We've historically suffered the consequences. So we certainly want and expect changes to just not in a way that ignores us in a continued fashion. I heard a commenter say people don't bat an eye out water cost increases. I strongly encourage that person and all people to learn about the racist history of water rights in this city. Today, people do bat an eye at cost increases of all natural resources, including and especially water. We just don't pay attention to them in these conversations. We literally have people who can't and will not even take advantage of our free trees because of the costs associated with watering them that they cannot afford. This is not different. People want to do the right thing. We need to make the right thing to do. Free the right thing here. Is an example of perhaps reimagining public safety in our city and our budgets. A public safety budget should prioritize paying for behaviors that make us all safer from the harms of continued planet degradation . We're literally doing the thing that put us in this situation to begin with. We're putting a price on doing good for each other and our Mother Earth. There's no dispute here about what we want to do. We all know we need to divert waste from landfills. We just do not agree on how we do this. Those of us who can afford to pay should, including those who are disproportionately responsible for waste generation, including the corporations and developers. Coming from someone who was raised in poverty. I don't struggle personally with upcycling or recycling. I'll use the month for ten different things. I'll go to the segment before I buy anything new. I'll shop in my friend's waste piles and make things brand new. And most of my neighbors will and do as well. What's not okay is pretending that we're doing some magnanimous or righteous thing while ignoring those who literally do not have two pennies to rub together. Those people exist here in Denver. The blatant denial that those people exist is the problem with this proposal and the privileged advocacy that ignored all of the ways to make this more doable and more enjoyable for everyone, because this cannot feel like punishment if we're going to do it right. Healing our planet requires us to feel joy and connection while we're doing it. Have you ever tried to make something grow? Well, if you have, then you know that joy and loving intention matters. We cannot punish people for not being able to afford to do this. We need to remove the cost entirely. Leans on. The poor are not in alignment with the spirit of healing our planet and should in no way be a part of a proposal that so many people feel so good about. I agree that the taxpayer and voter should have a voice in this, and fortunately, at least the most important component they will get to vote on with the waste and the more ballot initiative. I agree that we should be ashamed of all of our dirty little secrets in Denver that contradict popular false narratives about how green we are or how liberal we are, or even how welcoming we are. There are metrics that are appealing, like being the types that are important for us to pay attention to, like being the top six city, displacing Latinos and the second top city gentrifying or displacing all people. Those are important to factor in here. The green cans as a visual cue that were somehow superior won't be enough to grandstand the other visual cues of more trucks on the roads picking them up. So, yes, please. Let's listen to the speaker who talked about one stop for several households versus individual stops. That was a great argument for returning to dumpsters where we can all do this as a collective and be as efficient as she points out we should be. I hope we search for a better visual cue of planet and community health. One that's not just green plastic bins. I hope that everyone who wants to make our metrics match our values does all that they can to make sure that our recycling doesn't just get dumped into other sacrificed communities. I hope that everyone here who wants to talk about leadership takes it upon themselves to stay connected to the body so that you as an individual can help monitor homes that are struggling to pay and pay yourself for them, or raise funds for those people or help them get enrolled in the rebate program. Because we certainly do not have the staff capacity in the city to do the basic things, let alone an extra eligibility testing program. Above all, I hope everyone in here takes this same passion to the corporations and the developers generating the largest share of waste in our city. This is tough for me tonight, living in the most polluted zip code, in a zip code in America that also happens to be one of the most vulnerable to involuntary displacement. Every fee matters. I don't want to support an ordinance that makes the most vulnerable an afterthought as usual. I don't want to ignore those who act and actually not build collective wealth in this city because there are a bunch of us who have not built collective wealth. I do not want to support a policy that will put leans on people's homes if the fees go unpaid. And I don't want to support an ordinance that doesn't have a plan for assessing impacts. I don't want to support a proposal that didn't try to just give us free composting to begin with. I really think that's where we should be beginning if we want to change behavior. And I'm not sure where I will be on this vote tonight at a time like this. I'm just not sure another new fee will serve our residents as intended. That's it for my comments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Madam President. Just want to thank all the speakers and everyone who's worked on this ordinance. I don't think it's easy when we talk about. Implementing any fee in the city and county of Denver, especially in a place where I was born and raised and it's getting more expensive to live. But as I was contemplating and thinking about this ordinance and thinking about hearing from my constituents, Albert Einstein popped into my head and Albert Einstein said, We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we use to create them. And in Denver, we do not charge for trash, and we have not. And so I believe that we have to come up with new solutions to come to face the issues that are plaguing our world. We are in the middle of a crisis with our planet, and I hope that we can all live by the same that our indigenous people taught us that my grandpa, who is native to this non Navajo, that we are stewarding this for the next seven generations. So with this vote I will be voting for the next seven generations and my generation will be impacted by the fee. And I will do everything possible in Council District one to ensure that we do what we can to make sure people are using the smallest black container. So that's $9 a month. So it's not 200 and some dollars, as my colleague, Councilman Flynn said. So with that, I hope my colleagues vote yes and vote with the next seven generations of Democrats. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council president. I first learned of this policy from members of the community. They educated me on their desire for us to do this differently. These community members hassled. The mayor's office went from agency to agency. When Councilman Clark got elected, they started to hassle him. This policy was actually born of community, and I want to thank first and foremost that community, the speakers who are here tonight. As of today, council has received more than 300 emails in support of this policy. Unfortunately, our email filter continues to eat the vast majority of them. I uploaded hundreds last Monday and we got hundreds more today that I didn't have time to upload. But that support has come from every district, every one, every single district in this city. The Climate Task Force, Food Policy Council, all the community leaders from groups like ECOSOC or Cobourg, Sierra Club, dozens of organizations, 350 that signed on letters, just that community is what brought us this policy. This isn't the city doing something to the community. This was the community demanding that the city do something for the climate and the city. Taking a minute, but responding. That's what this represents. I want to thank the city folks that were involved, my dear partner, Councilman Clark, Grace and the cast, your team, Adam and everybody at Dottie, the mayor's office that was involved, my own aides, Teresa and Jamison, who educated dozens of residents with questions. So thank you to all the parts of the team that responded to that community demands and helped bring us here today. So I want to start with a quote from Jane Goodall. You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make. Every single week. Denver influences the behavior of 100,000 180,000 households. We give them a signal that is more powerful than any flier, than any tweet or any ad on a bus. Our signal tells them that we will charge them nothing to throw away an unlimited amount to the landfill. And our signal tells them that if they want to do the right thing, they have to pay up. Our actions speak louder than any of our words could. And in America, our dollar incentives speak louder than any advertising campaign we could ever launch. Our policy and our fee structure educate our residents very clearly. Every single day, our message is heard. And our residents have responded to the education we have done perfectly. They have thrown things in the landfill because it's free and they have not taken up composting because it costs something. Those results speak for themselves. They are the education program we've implemented over 20 years. So just to highlight a few things that we've discussed tonight, this question of equity. So I'm not just a champion for this policy for climate. I just have to say that I've spent more of my career to chagrin or some championing policies that fight income inequality. I sponsored the minimum wage with the administration. I sponsored the housing fund. I sponsored a number of things. I would not support a climate policy that I thought exacerbated or didn't take into account income inequality. It would go against every other piece of legislation I've ever run. That's not who I am and that's not where I come from. And I just you know, Councilman Torres said this more eloquently than I ever could about how this policy breaks new ground in considering and centering actually residents with the with the lowest income who are involved in this policy. Right. Who are involved in this customer base. But I really want to reference what other speakers said. Elisabetta, who lives in a condominium and described how her residents right are subsidizing the cost avoided by higher income median income homeowners and duplex residents. We had renters who live in apartments describing the inequity of our current system. So not only does this policy that we're voting on tonight center equity through the rebate program, it actually undoes some inequity in our current system. And I'll reference my comments and all the math I provided last week of how that subsidy works. The other thing that is built into this policy, it's a small piece, but I want folks to know about it is based on the inspiration of Councilwoman Gilmore and all the work to protect HRA residents. This bill includes a prohibition on fining residents for leaving bins on the right of way. It's the city's right of way. It's not the right of way. And they have no business charging fines and penalties to people for using the right of way, even if they think it's a day later than it should be. That's not their business. And this bill makes that clear and it protects them from any fees or penalties or fines for leaving bins on the right of way. I'm proud that that little piece is in there. A little piece of equity built in. I believe in science. And I do know that everyone up here believes in the science of, you know, the climate is changing. We don't have any climate deniers here, but climate science isn't the only science involved in this policy. There is empirical research right behind this policy. There is you know, we have some criticism here of weakly recycling. Here's the real math. Cities that do weekly recycling tend to see a 3 to 5% bump in recycling tonnage. Let me just quantify that. This was mentioned in passing in the presentation. We had 44,000 tons of recycling in last year. Okay. A 3 to 5% bump would be one 1300 to 2200 additional tons tons taken out of the landfill and recycled. That's math and that is science. And it is real. And it is documented from cities who've done weekly recycling. That's science. And I believe it. And it's behind this policy. We've also been sent empirical research and we've heard testimony tonight on folks like from Ryan Call and Sonya Hansen that documented the wide range of peer reviewed research that compared education only campaigns in the climate context to those that had economic incentives built in every study by real scientists of these policies, including in the waste context, found that economic incentive motivated more behavior change than education. That's real science. I believe in science, and it's behind this policy. Now, that said, I believe it is our job to listen and respond. I appreciate it. Councilman Cashman acknowledging the need to have hearts and understand and those who described our obligation to respond, monitor and adjust this policy where needed to ensure that its heart stays centered . And I also appreciate the concerns our colleagues have raised about better and different education. So it is important for our agency implementing this to do the things that have been asked of them. Right, to prioritize hiring and to do something fundamentally different with education. You've heard that message. Councilman Clarke and I have requested and invited ourselves to a monthly briefing on implementation to ensure that we carry that message that you all have raised forward. So we want higher profile education, more values based education, and more education that links these things to climate than we've seen from Daddy in the past. We want something unlike what you've done in the past. That's the expectation, and we'll be around to help you deliver. But really, tonight, the decision's up here. We're faced with a simple question Should we take action to reduce the climate impacts of our customers solid waste habits right away? Should we or should we not? I want to just close with one more quote, which is from Greta Thunberg. Everything needs to change and it has to start today. Everything needs to change and it has to start today. Not some things need to change, not just other things need to change. Not just bigger things need to change. But everything's. We in Denver were part of everything. The climate does not care if greenhouse gases come out of a tailpipe or a smokestack or a cardboard box in a landfill. It is agnostic. Our waste is part of everything. And tonight it appears, based on my accounting, that we do have the votes to do something and to do a reduction in greenhouse gases. And I'm excited to vote yes to be a part of that tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Kimmich. And seen no other speakers in the queue. All Fine. I'll finish out our conversation tonight with my comments. I do want to thank the community members who spoke this evening, who sent us emails, who spoke at community meetings. I'd like to thank my colleagues for all the work that you have done to find compromise and try to get us to this place. And this proposal and vetting process has been very challenging and difficult for my constituents and me. I co-founded a nationally recognized science based nonprofit over 26 years ago. I have a degree in zoology and chemistry, and I've worked as a wildlife biologist for state agencies. I understand the science and I feel the same urgency as the speakers and my colleagues. I would be an easy yes vote on this if it was only my voice and and my values I was voting on tonight. But that is not the case. As the elected representative for District 11, I must consider and bring forward the concerns, feedback and voice of my constituents who I represent. To be clear, we are going to have to do something like this sooner than later. There are going to be additional policy discussions around climate. But as I have attended and participated in many community meetings in regard to this topic and in listening, truly listening to my community, it is clear that because of a lack of education and outreach, along with inflation and the cost of living, I have had overwhelming opposition to this in my district. The gravity of climate change insists that we must have our constituents along with us on this journey. The current education plan shows that there are many gaps in the overall lack of education. Montebello in the past had the highest water usage in the city. I know that because Denver Water came to my prior nonprofit and asked us to help star an education campaign to mitigate the water usage. Turns out the city allowed developers to build homes in Montebello, a historic African-American community, without requiring them to amend the soil, which is very, very sandy. In order to conserve water. But Denver water created an education campaign. Use only what you need and through ongoing educational programs. We started to fix that high water usage through different tactics and techniques, by working together as a community. In communities of color, decades of systemic injustices have contributed to a lack of access and knowledge in regard to climate change education. To me, not including a robust educational campaign contributes to those systemic injustices and purposely leaves low income people and communities of color behind and out of the process. The composting participation map shows a clear delineation between the far Northeast District 11 and the rest of the city. The horrible effects that COVID had on our residents, either through lack of access to health care, food or housing insecurity, loss of employment. Not to forget family members, illness or death. Simply put, we have been dealing with life and it shows there hasn't been the participation. And with no coordinated or consistent marketing for composting or recycling. We unfortunately only have 126 customers in Montebello and 294 in GRT for composting. I'm proud to say that my family and Montebello are one of those customers, but I also recognize the privilege that we have in order to pay that $9 a month. I have heard from older adults, families and others in my district who are struggling to pay their mortgage, their car note to buy groceries, to pay for gas , asking me. I've got to decide between buying medicine for my food for my child or food. How am I going to pay for this cost? We still don't have a good, solid answer for my constituents that are asking me these questions. The cost of inflation in this country has increased dramatically. Many of my constituents are feeling the financial burden of these unprecedented inflation pressures. City Council should hold off on the passage of this plan until Dottie and Casper can clearly articulate at least the year one goals which they couldn't do tonight. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, for that question. If we can't do it in the public hearing and explain that, how are we supposed to explain it to our constituents and get them involved other than charging them a fee? I'd like to see us build out a comprehensive outreach and education plan. I firmly believe that we need this education campaign and that we should wait for a new administration to set this up so that it can be rolled out properly. So we're not dealing with staff from the end of a mayor's term leaving mid-stream in the rollout of this program. I ask my colleagues to think about what I have shared with them. I share with Council member Kenny that I do believe you have the votes to pass this tonight. Either way, I am committed to representing my constituents, carrying their voice forward and and making sure that we ensure that we are mitigating our trash and that we are working. To mitigate all of the negative effects of climate change. But to be honest, this all started with the Industrial Revolution. And if we really think that we're going to flip this on a dime in the next 3 to 5 years. I would ask us to have a reality check because there are so many constituents who are living in our city that are worried about staying in their home, worried about paying for everyday items that a lot of the folks that spoke to tonight maybe don't have that same fear or that same reality. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 685, please.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca I'm very reluctant. No. Sandoval. I. Torres, I. Black. Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Flynn?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Herndon?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: Haines.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Kinney. I. Ortega. No.
Speaker 0: Sawyer. Madam President, no, madam Secretary, close voting and announced results. Five Nays. Ayes, Ayes Council Bill 20 2-685 has passed as amended our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 25th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 637 changing the zoning classification for 4710 North Stuart Street in Berkeley and a required public hearing
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 48 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to repeal the fee on composting and implement a volume-based pricing system for trash, including recycling and composting services at no extra charge, to facilitate improved waste diversion and its related environmental benefits.
Amends Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to repeal the fee on composting and implement a volume-based pricing system for trash, including recycling and composting services at no extra charge, to facilitate improved waste diversion and its related environmental benefits. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-7-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0577
|
Speaker 0: Oh. All right. Well, we can certainly expect.
Speaker 3: No words, no big deal, because either way, you know, it's just comments, not a vote, but wanted to just make that make sure that that's clear. So, Bill, five, seven, seven is a bill for an ordinance exempting diapers, including incontinence products from sales tax in Denver. So just wanted to call this out because I have to put my glasses on because I can't see anything, because it went through committee on consent and we haven't really had an opportunity to kind of bring it up and talk about it yet. So I wanted to just kind of call attention to it. The state legislature passed a sales tax exemption on diapers and menstrual products this session, which is wonderful. It's up to each city, though, to decide whether to exempt these items from local sales tax as well or not. Denver already exempts medicinal products thanks to Councilman Clark's 2019 legislation. So this ordinance just adds diapers, like I mentioned, including adult incontinence products to the list of necessary items that are exempted from sales tax in Denver. And just wanted to point out, this ordinance is in alignment with our values as a council, and it has the effect of helping keep some hard earned cash in the pockets of many of our residents, including our young families and older residents. It's much needed given the unprecedented inflationary pressures that we're seeing right now. And the Budget Management Office estimates that it's got a fiscal note somewhere between 500,000 and $800,000 annually. So it isn't a huge amount of money. But I really hope that Denver's families and older adults who are using these products, of course, no one uses these products. But if there was someone using these products in our older adult category that, you know, we hope that this helps them keep some of that hard earned money in their pocket and they can put it towards things that have gotten more expensive in 2022. And I just wanted to thank all of my colleagues for allowing this to go through on consent because of all of your wholehearted support, and especially Councilmember Clark and one of his aides, Maggie Thompson, who whose personal experience actually brought this to our attention. So really excited. Thanks for your partnership on this, Councilman Clark. And it'll take effect October 1st of this year. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I appreciate the correction on the Resolution 577 and happy to support that. We're going to move on. Madame Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Councilmember Black, would you please put resolution six, six, eight on the floor for adoption?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance exempting diapers and incontinence products from the collection of sales and use tax in the City and County of Denver.
Exempts certain products from sales tax. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-31-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0685
|
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes, one abstention. Resolution 22, Dash 668 has passed. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Council Member Clark, would you please share your comments on Council Bill 685.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council President I will have more comments on this bill as a whole and especially next week on final consideration. But as we saw from our our public comment today there, this is a bill that is very of high interest to a lot of people. And so I would like to officially and formally request a courtesy public hearing be held on Monday, June 27th on second reading or final consideration of Council Bill 20 20685 regarding implementation of a volume based pricing system for trash.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. If ordered published on Monday, June 27, there will be a courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 685 regarding implementing a volume based pricing system for trash. Councilmember Black, will you please put Bill 685 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 2-0685 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and second to third. Councilmember Ortega, your motion to amend.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. My first motion. I've got two amendments to proposed amendments. Council members. I move to amend Council Bill 20 20685 as follows On page nine, line 31, insert section nine, a new Section 48 dash 50 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code shall be created by adding the language. Underline as follows Section 48 Dash 49 Dash Sunset. Subsections A per and B per NC and per an EP of section 48, dash 42.5 and Section 48. Dash 48 shall sunset on October 3rd, 2028, and page nine, line 32, strike section eight and replace it with nine. Actually its strike eight, underline nine and replace with section ten. So it needs a second.
Speaker 6: It's actually.
Speaker 2: Permit me to explain what this amendment does.
Speaker 0: Yes, I want to make sure that we're tracking with the council secretary as to the script. And I had that you were going to offer the other 1/1. The other 1/1. But we can go ahead and move to this second motion. Is that all right, council secretary? Okay. All right. We've got it moved and seconded. Councilmember Ortega, go ahead and explain this amendment.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Madam President. What this amendment does is it provides for a sunset of the volume based pricing and the lean provisions, but it keeps the requirement that revenue collected from the fee be kept separate and only be used for certain costs.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And I'm going to wait for just a second because.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I didn't realize they had a.
Speaker 0: Council secretary. I want to make sure that I'm at the right place. In the script here. Councilman Clark, go ahead with your comment, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council president. I I was not able to be in committee for the discussion that this brought, so I just wanted to speak up here. You know, I think that will sunset on certain programs and certain funding sources are, you know, not always a bad thing and often appropriate on a fee based service that the city is providing. I don't think that this is a good idea to institute a sunset were this to sunset without council action. You know, the the program would immediately terminate without necessarily a plan on how to continue to provide trash service, how that would be funded that could lead, you know, in an in a budget that we have , we have not seen and we won't see because of the summer of, you know, years in the future could lead to massive cuts in other programs. And in all, without really the robust discussion like we're having today about how what to do, how to handle this service. And so I just don't think that this is the appropriate way to to institute or the appropriate place for a sunset to be instituted, as we're talking about fees for a service that the city is providing and just the ramifications that, you know, and a sunset would have on the rest of the budget. I mean, I guess there's a possibility at that point that the general fund doesn't have the capacity to pay for this service. And then we would be talking about are we privatizing trash collection, like many cities have as a bigger discussion that needs to happen, not because all of a sudden a program sunsetted. It would need to be a discussion like this about how should we handle this city service? And and I think that a sunset is absolutely the wrong mechanism for that. So I will be voting no on this and would encourage my colleagues as well to vote no on this amendment to the bill. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Ortega, I see you're in the queue, but since you offered the amendment, if it's okay, I'm going to go ahead to the other members and we'll come back to you. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I'll support the amendment. I believe in sunsetting new programs that have been not yet tried or proven. If it turns out in five years that all we have done is charge people a fee and not achieve the goal, then all we've done is displaced. Or actually we've opened up new money in the general fund for other purposes. I was here. I was here. Excuse me, Robert, please.
Speaker 1: Robert.
Speaker 6: Robert, please. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Please. Where? Mr. Bailey. Thank you.
Speaker 6: All we will have done is charged people up to $252 a year and had no and did not and do not get the result that we want. But we would have freed up $33 million in the general fund to use for other for other purposes. And I recall sitting here maybe five years ago when another member who shall remain nameless said to me, Why don't you support paying for trash? Just think what you could use that other $33 million once we free it up. And so, Madam President, with that in mind, I think I would support this sunset and put it on a future council to come up with a solution if this program doesn't actually achieve the stated goals. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So what we're doing is creating a forever fee on trash service. This is a service that our citizens in Denver have been able to enjoy all this time. And now, because we want to require everybody to compost, we've found a creative way of charging them based on the sized trash can they're going to use for their regular trash. People who may already compost in their backyards. You will be able to continue to do that, but you will now be expected to pay for your regular trash service, which is already provided. People who have composting today can they pay for their service? The city is trying to fold this into where the city delivers all of this service, but they're going to charge everybody now, everybody meaning single family households and up to eight units. It doesn't include apartments. It doesn't include any of our business industry like McDonald's and Chick-Fil-A and many of those places that generate a lot of trash . That is not always compostable products that they're using. And so I think the timing of bringing this forward is not appropriate. Creating a forever fee. If you all remember, taxpayers had to pay for the plant to Park Hill Drainage Project. That was based on how much you pay on your property for your impervious surface. But somehow we figured out a creative way to expound on charging you all for a 300 million plus dollar drainage project through raising your impervious surface piece. So this is a fee that can be increased at any time based on a study that has to justify the increase to cover the cost. But instead of saying, let's just pay for composting, we're now somehow folding it in where everybody's going to pay for all of those services. And I'm bringing this sunset forward. We did this when we created the lower downtown historic district. We reviewed the existence of that district every two years for six years, and it was going to sunset at the end of six years. So this is not something new that the city has done. And, you know, we're spending a lot of money and a lot of time to put together a program. That currently there are challenges with the billing system. You will hear at the public hearing, because I've received many, many emails about this, the inconsistency of our delivery of services. I think we're imposing a lot on our drivers in areas where we have moved the trash service from the alley to the street. We're now seeing in those cases where we have citizens who cannot get their three bins down a stairwell, a staircase, if you will, down their steps to the front of their street. And that assumes there's room on the street and there aren't a bunch of cars parked there. We're now going to have the driver park in the middle of the street, go up and get the bins and take them down. And I'm assuming they want them to be taken back up because where we have elderly individuals who can't do that. We've been told the drivers are going to do that while the trucks sit there and idle. Right. So where we can move the needle in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is on the transportation side and do a whole lot more there. We're doing a lot with our buildings, and I commend our Climate Action Office for the work they're doing there. We're doing a little bit on the transportation side, but there's so much more and that's where you can see the needle moved significantly. More than what we will do with the way this program is being structured. I don't disagree that we should encourage people to compost. I have a compost bin in my backyard. I've been using that for years. But the reality is we're creating a forever fee that Denver citizens are going to have to pay at a time when citizens across our city are being hit with other increases, not to mention the cost of living, housing, food. And so I, I am bringing this forward as a way to lighten the blow on our citizens of Denver. And so I just wanted to explain that, and I'll have another one in just a minute. So we'll see where the votes are. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And we're going to go ahead and go Councilmember Kinney. We had seen your hand raised and so we have you in the queue. I see that you lowered it, but just want to check in if you did have a question or comment on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Very briefly, I want to remind the council that we are not voting on the bill itself, and I respect that there are people on this body who have differing views about this policy. This particular vote is on an amendment that would turn off the entire solid waste program as we know it, with a light switch, with no plan to fund and make sure trash gets picked up in five years. That is not a responsible way to manage a program. We have never used a sunset for a program like this for a fee like this, and it would put the city at whatever financial situation we're in at that time in dire straits. And so even if you're someone who has some concerns or questions about this policy, I would ask that you vote no on this amendment because it is financially irresponsible for us to leave our city with no method to pay for solid waste five years down the road, and to potentially risk having to go to the voters for a tax increase or have some other emergency measure or massive cuts to programs. So those are not palatable or financially responsible ways of managing this. So I encourage folks to set aside the difference between the policy and this particular mechanism. Should this bill pass, this particular mechanism would be financially risky for the city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Meech. Next up, we've got Councilmember Flynn. And before we go to you, sir, I know you're standing up against the wall, but we have a requirement that everybody be in a seat for ease of egress if we needed it. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I respect what Councilmember Kenny's just said. I actually would counter that I have faith in the future council to come up with a plan. They would have a lot of time to plan because we would see the trends and whatever situation occurs in five years at a potential sunset, they could renew the program , as has been done many times, like with the downtown lower downtown historic district. Or they can come up with a financial plan to to resume covering it under the general fund. I don't think it's I don't think it's accurate to say that we would be leaving them without a plan. It's five years from now to be a completely different council and let them use their judgment. I trust them. I don't know who they are, but I trust them.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember CdeBaca, thank you.
Speaker 3: I agree with my colleague, Councilman Flynn. I think it's important, especially since.
Speaker 4: The intent of this change is to change behavior.
Speaker 3: To have that review period there. There doesn't need to be a forever fee. If we are able to see that this does change behaviors in the desired way, then it's not like we're planning. It's not like we don't have to plan to incorporate the cost of doing this into our budget. We just might be able to incorporate that cost in a different way where it's not exactly a fee on the customer, where it's just part of the way that we do business. And so I do think that it's important that not only do we have a sunset, but that every single year I think we should be evaluating if the change has. Changed behaviors in the desired way and know our progress every step of the way. I don't think that in five years it just poof, like out of thin air disappears. I think that the agency, if the agency is responsible, then they are planning, they are assessing the metrics annually. And we will know every step of the way what needs to be done if we need to course correct, if we need to renew it or if we need to modify it. So I think this is a good amendment and I will be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President I completely agree with Councilmember Flynn that I trust the council that is is going to be here in five years. That means we don't need any sort of sunset or amendment provision because our council, if they see something that's happening in four years or six years or five years or eight years, they will be like we are and they'll move with intention and and change or modify or repeal are what we're what we're passing tonight. So or actually what we're moving forward to the next week. So I trust that that we just as we are moving forward, hopefully tonight, this provision, if it happens at some point in the future, we can also take it away. We've already done it once. This class is already done at once with the Otter's provision, we passed it into law and then we took it back out and that didn't require a sunset clause. So I'll be voting now and I hope my colleagues also vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and seen no other members in the queue. A reminder this amendment is to sunset the provision. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to Council Bill 22, dash 685.
Speaker 7: HINES No.
Speaker 3: Can each. No.
Speaker 5: Sandoval.
Speaker 2: No. Ortega, I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: TORRES No.
Speaker 4: Black No.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca I.
Speaker 1: Clark No.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon? No.
Speaker 1: Cashman No.
Speaker 5: Madam President?
Speaker 0: No, Madam Secretary. Close voting and announced results.
Speaker 5: Ten NIS three eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten nis three eyes. The amendment fails. Councilmember Ortega, your second motion to amend.
Speaker 2: I move to amend Council Bill 20 2-0685 as follows On page six Line four, strike the manager of transportation and infrastructure and replace with City Council to on page six line five after the word study ad conducted by Manager of Transportation and infrastructure. Three on page six strike. Line five. Page six, line five, strike through an update to the rules. And number four on page six, strike line six, seven and eight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment.
Speaker 2: The member Ortega.
Speaker 0: Yes, please. Okay.
Speaker 2: So this amendment gives City Council the power to sit and update the fee structure based on a cost to service study by Doddy, which was required before this amendment was proposed, and removes the authority from the manager of transportation and infrastructure to increase fees. And if I could just add a few comments. Additionally, historically, our fees have been approved by city council over time. Some of that has changed where the managers of agencies have been given that authority to increase fees. And what this does is says that based on a study that justifies an increase that would be brought before city council and city council would approve those proposed increases. So that, in essence, is what this amendment does.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, council president. You know, again, I'm not going to get into the broader bill, which I know we got into a little bit on the amendment. I'm just going to speak to this amendment, and I believe this amendment is a bad idea for this. You know, the primary responsibility that Dottie has when managing any fee, because this is a fee, is to adhere to the table requirements and ensure that the fee does not exceed the and is lined up with the cost of service and meets those legal standards. And so I think that this is a fee as a fee. This is very appropriate for Dottie to be doing that. We have other pieces in place. The bill requires biannual reports on revenue and expenditures. The Council. There is a required cost of service study before any fee would change. There are lots of protections in place. There are places where council overlaps with that to keep track of this. But at the end of the day, the fee has to cover the service and it cannot exceed that. This is not revenue generation. This is a fee to cover service. And so inserting. So I think that I think that inserting council into that decision making process versus the appropriate places where I believe this bill puts council and allows council authority and oversight, I think that's the right way to go is as written with the reporting. And I think that it would not be appropriate here to move that authority on setting the fee that is based on those legal requirements and TABOR and the cost of service study to ensure that it lines up they're out of date. And so that reason I will be voting no and would ask my colleagues to vote no as well. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. I on this body at least, I am very reluctant to give up and surrender any city council authority over the things that affect the people of this city. We should retain the ability, the authority, to look at these fees and to measure them against the study and analysis that's done by Dottie over that period and determine whether the fees should be that much or should we look at the level of service instead of putting it on autopilot? We did that with the wastewater fees, and I think that was a big mistake. We did that with the wastewater fees back in 2016 and we put them on autopilot. I think it's a gauge to Denver Boulder's CPI. Which is not a good measure to for construction. But look at what inflation is doing this year. I know that this fee isn't based on CPI, but it's gauged on what the director of Dottie feels should be the level of service. And I think that that should be a decision that rests with this council. We're setting the initial fee. Why would we surrender the authority and the ability? To approve or disapprove, disapprove of future fee increases. We do this with the Golf Enterprise Fund. The fee increases for those and for parks comes to this council as it should. And so I would support this. And in line with my last remarks on the last amendment to Councilmember Hines. Let's trust future councils to do the right thing. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn and Councilor Pro Tem Torres.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Is there.
Speaker 3: Anybody that can speak to where.
Speaker 2: Else council is.
Speaker 0: Able or empowered to raise or lower fees that we charge for for city.
Speaker 2: Services?
Speaker 0: Sky console or sky, whichever wants to take it.
Speaker 1: Sure. Thank you. Council President Ultraviolet. Assistant City Attorney.
Speaker 2: City Council.
Speaker 1: Has various fees. Look at it in ordinance, primarily license fees. Almost all the license fees are in ordinance. The charter requires actually that we have license fees, an ordinance. There's a couple of other places what council said to be an ordinance because they're subject to change by council. Not all have to comply with the city requirements. The central requirement for people here at the disposal is one other fee that council sets an ordinance.
Speaker 3: Are they also.
Speaker 0: Bound by the same TABOR.
Speaker 2: Requirements?
Speaker 1: So yes, thanks for the question. So anytime a city council has a fee, an ordinance, if it's a fee, and then the tax is subject to the same requirement.
Speaker 2: He did. We set. And do we change as a council?
Speaker 0: The current composting fee. Is there someone from Dotty on that? Jason.
Speaker 2: Sky. Sure.
Speaker 3: High Sky Student Mayor's Office.
Speaker 2: The current composting fee is in code, so it is set.
Speaker 3: It was set by council when it was originally set. There are a number other fees. Angel answered, some that are set by council. There are also.
Speaker 2: A number of examples that are not set by council. The authority rests with the.
Speaker 3: Individual agency, so it's really a mixed bag across the board.
Speaker 0: Can you give me an example of some that are not that.
Speaker 2: Are changed by.
Speaker 3: Departments? Sure. Meter rates are changed by the Department of Transportation through the.
Speaker 2: Manager's.
Speaker 3: Authority.
Speaker 2: Our street occupancy permit fees. There are a number and 40 that have a managers and authority with them associated with a fee study. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Sky and Angel. And thank you, counsel pro tem Torres. I'm not seeing any other members in the queue for questions on this amendment around setting the fees. And so. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment, please.
Speaker 2: Pounds.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 5: Carnage?
Speaker 2: No. Sandoval. No. No. Ortega, I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: Torres.
Speaker 2: I. Black.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: See, tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon No.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Seven days, six days.
Speaker 0: Seven days. Six eyes. The amendment to 20 2-685 has failed. Council Bill 20 2-685 is on the floor for publication of questions by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-685c None. Comments by Members of Council O Councilmember Flynn. If you have a question, go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: No amount of press actually comments. I called this out for a vote earlier today, so I wanted to discuss why I'm voting no on publication. I why this proposal has been through a lot of thought and development. I don't believe it's well-structured. It's not likely to produce the results that we want. First, the city has never done a complete and comprehensive educational campaign among our customers on how to recycle or compost and divert from their trash bins. We shouldn't even be thinking about imposing fees to supposedly incentivize people to do something that is unclear to them on how to do it. How about giving people very clear tutorials on what goes in the Green Bay, what goes in a purple bin and goes in the black bin and seeing the results. Second, even with sparse public education on this, our customers in the residential trash program already are doing much of what we ask of them. No constituent has ever asked me for weekly recycling, but my office has helped them upgrade their purple cards to the 95 gallon size and in many cases to get a second recycling cart. It is a waste of money and resources, not to mention harmful to the environment, to have to buy twice as many recycling trucks to drive this entire city every week instead of every two weeks for weekly recycling, when in most cases we'll be collecting only half every week instead of the full carts every other week. We heard in committee two weeks ago that the Solid Waste Division workforce currently has a 28% vacancy rate, and that's down from a 35% workforce shortage in January. At that rate of hiring, it would take until January 2024 to get to 100%. Even for the current program today, without accounting for having to hire 22 more workers to go to weekly recycling. And we heard in public comment earlier this evening how our crews are struggling to maintain even the current schedule. We should not be charging for a service that we can't not yet provide today. Save the money and the carbon footprint by sticking with biweekly recycling, by deploying 95 gallon purple cards or second cards to households that need them. Third, our residential solid waste collections make up only 18% of what goes to the landfill from this city. Fully half of what gets dumped comes from construction and demolition activities. The other 32% comes from these large multifamily complexes and commercial and retail disposal. I showed the committee two weeks ago the photos. I took, the dumpsters in the many apartment complexes and the office and retail plazas in my district. The photos are available in the council files on this bill at the public, which is to to go and view them easily. 50 to 75% of what was in those dumpsters was recyclable or compostable. I cannot ask the people who already are largely doing the right thing by filling one or two of the recycle bins to pay up to 252 bucks a year. While we are not mandating diversion from the 82% of the market that throws such an enormous amounts of needless waste into the landfill, instead, I advocate remove the fee we now charge for compost collection and delay consideration of charging for trash collection for at least a year to see the benefits of actually educating the public on what we want them to do. We've seen that cities with a high diversionary have charges for residential trash. A correlation is not causation. There's no evidence that the fee is what's causing it. In fact, some of those cities like Portland mandate recycling of demolition and construction debris, and that's what's moving their needle. You could charge many of our households 100 bucks a month and they wouldn't be able to divert much more. Only by mandating recycling of construction and demolition, debris and diversion from commercial buildings and large multi-family residential can meaningfully make change. Finally. Madam President, I do not have great faith in the promise of a discount program for lower income households. Many of my constituents are renters and they live in Brentwood and Harvey Park Valley, and they live in single family homes and small unit residential. And I know that we're geared up to do outreach to them. But to many of them, I believe, will fall into the cracks of the landlords who already provide the largest card and will simply add 21 bucks to the monthly rent. And this is in a city with rising rents. I worked last week with a retired city engineer to crunch some numbers based on the published figures of what goes into our landfill and Denver's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. Solid waste produced only 2%, 2% of Denver's greenhouse gases. The city's residential customers contributed only 18% of that 2%. Fully two thirds of Denver's greenhouse gases come from comes from buildings and 30% comes from cars, busses, airplanes and, yes, trash collection trucks. My engineer friend calculated that if all those customers diverted their recyclable or compostable waste from the landfill, there would be a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions of five and a half. 10 billion with a B of 1%. If global emissions were measured in the length of a football field, the reduction would be to ten millions of one inch. That's a difference that cannot even be measured in the real world, only on paper. I cannot ask people who are struggling this year with eight and a half percent inflation, $5 a gallon gas, the prospect of higher utility bills through xcel's upcoming time of day pricing, plus more fees potentially on the November ballot to pay up to 252 bucks a year for this. In committee, I said, it feels like we're swatting a fly with a cannon. After seeing these calculations, it feels like we're swatting a fly with a cannonball the size of the earth. So my vote tonight is with the struggling households of this city trying to maintain their affordability in the face of this year's extraordinary economic distress. And I ask my colleagues to consider this and at least to think about delaying implementation this program for a year. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you for for.
Speaker 3: Many of those reasons. I do just want to give everyone a heads up that I will be proposing an amendment. I've been working with the city attorney to try and figure out how to.
Speaker 2: Equitably exclude our.
Speaker 3: Most vulnerable neighborhoods and people who've been in their homes for over 20 years, so that we make sure that we're protecting our elders, protecting people who are experiencing involuntary displacement and not making them.
Speaker 2: Jump through more hoops while.
Speaker 3: They're already jumping through hoops for our other rebate programs.
Speaker 2: On property taxes.
Speaker 3: Or any of our benefit programs that many people are using right now. So just putting that on everyone's radar, that that will be coming. If this does get.
Speaker 2: Published next week.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members said about the council member Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Is it okay to ask some questions?
Speaker 0: Sure we are in the questions and comments, period. So go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: All right. Well, somebody from daddy I have some questions on the program. The first one is we heard earlier in public comment that the landfill doesn't generate greenhouse gas because it's captured and somehow used for electricity. Can can someone address that? Knowing all of my kids.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 3: Bruce Frank, Executive Director of the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency. We have received that question before, and I was able to ask the the folks in environmental quality who actually run the contract for the landfill. And they told me that 30% of the methane that is generated at the landfill is currently captured.
Speaker 2: In.
Speaker 3: Their renewable natural gas system.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for that.
Speaker 6: Next. You might have this as well. I've always heard that. Right now, we have about 30,000 homes in paying for composting in our program. And I saw something online from a constituent that said, that's not right. It's 18,000. Can you give me the correct figure, please?
Speaker 3: 30,000.
Speaker 1: A third.
Speaker 6: About £30,000. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Very much.
Speaker 2: So for the public, I mean, just the lowly project manager with 30.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. And as far as our composting program, I have heard from a number of constituents who have long backyard composting. Can you tell me the difference? My understanding is the city's compost program allows you to put far more things into compost. Is that correct or incorrect?
Speaker 2: Definitely. So the city's composting program is an industrial composting program.
Speaker 3: So we accept like meat, dairy, bones, all these things you can put into a backyard compost pile. We encourage everyone to do both.
Speaker 6: Thank you for that. Now, as regards the program that's being proposed, it was proposed for an October implementation date. My understanding is we're now looking at January one. What I would like to know is on January one, what percentage of our homes will have their compost bins?
Speaker 3: So at that time, we'll be in the midst of rolling out compost carts to the first phase of residents. That service won't start for them until about end of February for the first 100,000 homes.
Speaker 7: Okay. So that's.
Speaker 6: Some more. We're getting close to two thirds.
Speaker 3: Yeah, about thirds of the compost customers will have their carts within the first quarter of the year. Anyone who does not have our service, even if they have the carts, will receive a credit on their on their invoice for the inconvenience of the rollout. And when their service starts, their credit will be removed.
Speaker 6: And have you set the dollar figure on that inconvenience figure?
Speaker 3: We're looking at about $3 a month in order for that cost of service.
Speaker 6: When will the rest of the homes have their composting?
Speaker 3: So the full rollout will be complete.
Speaker 2: By mid 2023.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. So talk has been from the dais that we're instituting a forever fee. We already have a forever fee that people are paying out of their out of the, you know, per person, out of the general fund through a variety of taxes. What does that amount to now per single family home? What does it cost to serve? Service. What we're doing now. And I see that you would like to get back to me on that.
Speaker 1: I'll get back to you.
Speaker 2: I would. Complicated.
Speaker 1: No, it is. I understand that.
Speaker 6: But I think it's irrelevant. I'd like to know. And the last.
Speaker 7: Thing.
Speaker 6: I get what my question is. I'm guessing you need to get back to me on this. What would it cost.
Speaker 1: If we.
Speaker 6: Offered the new services for free until the point when everybody has their compost bins? So if you could get back to me with that fee, I'd appreciate very much that number.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilmember Kimmich.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President, I really appreciate the fact we're on first reading tonight. I had hoped to defer most of my comments until the public hearing and the debate on second reading. But a number of claims and concerns have been raised. And I think it's important for our community that's watching tonight to hear all the the both sides of the story, even as we just vote in first reading. So I'm asking for a little patience. This will be debating this again next week. But just a few things. One of the things I've heard described both tonight and in other conversations is that Denver doesn't have any fee for trash today and that our residents do not pay for trash. And that is factually inaccurate. And I need to really clarify. This city has 700,000 plus residents in it and just under half of them live in multi-family housing that is paying for their trash service today. Those are residents of our city, their constituents. They are families who live in our city. And they are paying their taxes. They're paying their property taxes. They're paying taxes through their rent. They're paying their sales tax when they shop. They're paying all those taxes. And they are also paying for their trash collection. The median income of those living in apartments in our city who are paying for their trash service today is around $50,000 a year. Today in Denver, we have a fee for our solid waste customers. You just heard a minute ago 30,000 of them are paying for compost. So it is just factually inaccurate to say that residents aren't paying for trash day. Half of our residents are paying for their.
Speaker 2: Trash.
Speaker 3: And another 15% or so are actually paying to do the right thing. So the remaining residents are really the ones we're debating and what is the equity of the system we have today? So I just want to run a few figures by folks, which is that 87% of the customers that we serve in this program, they live in single family or duplex living and the median income in the single family homes, that's renters and owners together. That's the median income for both, whether they rent or own. The median income is $108,000 in those in those products, and it's in the high $80,000 a year range for the duplexes. So what we have today is a system where our taxpayers, our apartment dwellers are actually subsidizing the cost of trash collection for a much higher median income set of residents. That is the situation today. And so, you know, I asked the question, so if we had a set of residents who got all the water that they wanted in our city right from their taps, and they could water their lawns as much as they wanted and they could, you know, fill their swimming pools as much as they wanted. And they paid no difference. But then we had another set of residents who was actually paying for the amount of water they used, and they actually were subsidizing the cost for the water of the other set of residents. Would we think that's fair? I don't think that we would. That is what we have is a solid waste system today. And so when we think about what is fair going forward, what is equitable going forward, it's really important to first ask, is the system we had today fair and equitable? And I would argue that it is not. We have a many we have a majority we have a majority of residents in our city today paying some form of cost for their trash, whether it's in the multifamily arena or whether they're paying to compost, majority are paying something. It's actually the minority of households that are not. The other thing I think that's really important to bring up is to remind folks, as we think about the concerns we have for those in our community who struggle, it's not to say that there are not residents of single family homes or duplexes or small apartment complexes who might have financial constraints. We know that to be true, and we have a whole set of tools built into this policy to protect those households from any negative impacts. So just to throw out some of the numbers, the rebate program that this is included in this ordinance will serve households, for example, for individuals earning up to 56 I'm sorry, $58,600 a year. So almost $60,000 a year for a family of four is provided a rebate. And these are among the lowest fees in the country. So I think it is really important for us to debate equity, but I'm going to challenge us to debate the inequities in our current system and also to be very transparent that we have a rebate program for those earning less than this income in this program. So really now what we are debating is even a smaller subset of households and whether it is appropriate for them to throw away all the trash in the landfill that they want subsidized by the others with no accountability to our climate. And so that's the question I think we're debating, and I think it's important that all those facts be out there. You know, one of the things that was said earlier, it was mentioned about a forever fee and it was the it was mentioned a cannonball the size of the earth. And I personally would like to live on a forever earth. One of the things that Councilman Flynn raised with boiling all of the greenhouse gas savings down to a percentage. I can't speak to the math that his engineer did, but I'll speak to the math and the and the science behind a different way of looking at it , which is that for us to meet, our solid waste goal is worth keeping 600,000 cars off the road. So I ask you, as we prepare for more 100 degree days. As the newspaper reminded us that probably only about 30 or 33% of the residents in this city have air conditioning and they are at serious risk of heat related illness and death. On those 100 degree days, if we can take the equivalent of 600,000 cars of greenhouse gas emissions out of the climate, why we would not do that? That is the question for us to debate if you don't want to do that. That is a valid policy position. But to say that this does not have a climate impact or that that climate impact doesn't matter is to ignore the science of climate. The best climate policy is every climate policy that we can pass. This is our behavior locally in the city and county of Denver. We can control it. I cannot control oil and gas extraction happening on the western slope. I cannot control ozone floating in from California, oil and gas or industry. I cannot control what happens internationally. But we can control the equivalent of 600,000 cars emissions simply by not putting proxies from Amazon in the landfill, which every week is happening in our city because recycling bins are full or because compost bins aren't available and we don't have a practice of doing the right thing. So those are the questions we're debating. We'll talk more about some of the operational claims and maybe some of the other details next week. But just wanted to put some foundation out there before we vote tonight on how important it is to move this to second reading so that we can hear more from our community, both about what's hard about this, but also what's necessary, hard and necessary sometimes go together. In our world particularly, we are talking about our one earth that we want to last forever. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, we've got Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to repeat what I shared earlier, but I just want to say that when you look at what we're trying to do and Councilwoman Kinney just talked about the inequity of this system and the way it's set up, it has been like this as long as I've been in the city of Denver. Anything over eight units have always paid for private trash pickup. And anything below that, the city has picked up the trash and that is built into your your taxes that you pay for your property if you're a renter that's passed on to you by the landlord. I have played a role in trying to bring different folks to do presentations before my colleagues to look at how we can be doing transportation differently. Again. That's where we can move the needle. The city council had an opportunity to express their voice when the I-70 project was being constructed and being widened to the number of lanes that it has today. Some of us tried to impact that project. Unfortunately, we were not successful. That added a lot more cars on the highway. So, you know where we talk about where we can really have significant impact in reducing greenhouse gases. It's where we can try to get people out of their cars and create a greater opportunity for mass transit. I think you all know that the state legislature approved funding for front range rail, which would connect Fort Collins all the way to Colorado Springs and tie into our RTD system, will be able to move the needle as we can, get people who commute back and forth and spend a significant amount of time on the highway adding to the air quality challenges that we have. And, you know, this this is an important conversation in terms of encouraging people to compost. That's what we're adding to the equation here, trying to get more people to compost and those who have not been recycling to recycle. And instead of just adding that and figuring out how much that cost and the figures that we've been given is that to just add this new. This new system or this new cost to the system. It's 13,964,000. $768.10. 13 million. 13 point almost $14 million. Right. But what we're going to do is charge 25 million. But that's the that's today's cost in 23. We've been told it's $33,000,483. And. So we're instead of just looking at the compost piece being added, we're folding the whole program under this this new fee. And so when you talk about the end of the what we were proposing as a sunset, these are costs that have been covered by the city the whole time. So the anticipation was it would be put into like an enterprise fund. And that's where I think some folks were expressing concern about what do you do? You put it back into the general fund or what. But to Councilman Flynn's point, the council could figure it out at that point. And I just think we're. Pushing so much of these fees and costs onto single family households and everybody under seven units to cover this cost, to create a whole new program that could be significantly cheaper if we just added composting. So I am not supporting this tonight. I tried to, you know, come up with some ways to lighten the impact on the folks who will be bearing the brunt of this program. And unfortunately, it was not successful in doing that. I think the timing of all of this is just couldn't be worse. And so I will not be voting for this tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Council President. Again, I'll save the bulk of my comments for next week on final reading and when we have the opportunity for the public to weigh in during the courtesy hearing but did want to hit on a couple of things, Councilman Cashman brought up a good question about the amount of methane at the landfill. And I just want to put a flag in another conversation that we need to be having, which is why are we only capturing 30% of that? We need to be making the investments to capture more, if not all of that. But at the end of the day, all of that is methane being created. And even if we capture it, instead of flaring it off where it's just going and burning and creating that emission there it's being captured, is being put in a pipe where it's burned somewhere else. So it's not a sustainable solution to our climate crisis. It's a better option than just burning it right there. But the best option is to not have more methane being created. And the way the path of that is to not throw things away that we have another use for it, that we can reuse, that we can recycle to minimize the amount of methane being created through that process that then either has to get cleared off or in the best case scenario at that point, which is not a best case scenario, has to go and be burned somewhere else. But we really need to again, this is a yes, and we need to be doing all of these things. We needed to be doing all of these things a decade ago or two decades ago to not be in the situation with our climate that we are right now. And we have to take action now. Another thing that I just wanted to play, because I know a lot of things are being thrown out and and and stated as fact. But I just want to point out that we have in our presentation slide deck, it has been presented by Dottie that when you look at the various sectors of who is creating waste that is either composted, recycled or or sent to the landfill. And you look at what we're hauling for a single family, up to seven units versus multifamily as a whole. I know that my my colleague down there has taken some pictures of specific dumpsters. But when you look at the actual numbers of as a whole multifamily versus what we haul for our customers commercial versus what we haul construction and demolition versus what we are, we're the worst. We have the worst diversion rate. So if you were able to take a picture not just of an individual dumpster and what is happening right there, but you were able to take a picture of all of those dumpsters that make up all of that thing. What we are hauling, we have control over here on council to vote on is the worst diversion rate we are sending the most to the landfill. We are worse than the pictures of that dumpster because we're worse than all of that. And so I just want to be very clear. We have that data in our deck, and I think it is I wanted to clear that up that when we're talking about this, it's not about an individual dumpster, it is about systems.
Speaker 8: And as a system, our system that.
Speaker 6: We have in place that has been in place for many, many years is the most broken of the systems when it comes to diverting things from the landfill, the climate impacts and also the other impacts. I just want to like again, first reading, we have not had the public hearing yet and I know that there are a lot of people who feel very strongly and me included on this issue, but I would implore my colleagues to to move this out of first reading and to second reading. Even if you are struggling with this issue, even if you have your mind made up about this issue so that we can allow for that public hearing and to get this, you know, through the system, to have that that full debate on final hearing, you know, especially because this specifically and we've talked about this and there's this is in the slide deck, too, and I rehash everything here, but this is something that our own way has been has been put forward as the recommendation and the ask from a lot of different groups. But I want to flag specifically our Climate Action Task Force that came together. And it is it's very difficult with this crisis, with this emergency, for a climate that is happening because it is. Needing to happen every day. And so it's very difficult to keep the level of intensity on it that it deserves and that it needs. And we had that very much when we put together that climate task force, when we created the climate office, when we referred to voters, which voters overwhelmingly approved of the initial kernel of funding , that was just one piece of what the total need was established was to remember how important this is and what an emergency is and what a, you know, an appropriate response to an emergency is. And so at that, I want to take us back to that moment with the climate task force coming to us and standing here , you know, presenting to us and saying, hey, this is what we need you to do, that we took action on a very small part of that report of all the things that we need to do. This is specifically called out almost verbatim to the program that is being presented by that task force, among many others, saying this is what we have to do as a city. And I know that there's been some made of, you know, what it would have might impact if it's too small. We as a city, we can't solve a global climate crisis by ourselves. But if we throw up our hands and say, well, my impact that we can that I can do as a city is too small. So I just won't do it. I won't do anything. That's how we fail as a planet. How we succeed as a planet is everyone saying no action is too small, all of them are necessary and we need to do yes and we need to do it all. If we are going to preserve the habitability for us and for all the other amazing creatures that call this planet home, and this is a part of that. And so I just I don't want that to get lost in this. Oh, this is too small from that perspective. And a lot of people said that when we brought forward all of the climate work that we did with the Climate Task Force was, you can't solve this as a city. So just don't just don't try. It's too hard. Well, it's not a convenient truth that we're up against. It is inconvenient. It is hard. And it is going to take all of all of us in the trenches on all of these decisions, having these hard conversations, if we are going to have a chance at preventing the worst outcomes that we are already starting to see today. Two last things that I just want to flag outside of the climate impact, because with that emergency happening is very easy for all conversations about the environment to go immediately to emissions and climate. But just from a materials standpoint, we are taking things to our little blip on this planet in the long arc of human history. We're here for this moment. We're taking a tonne of materials and we're just burying it forever in the ground and materials that could be used for generations beyond us, that can be reused, that can be recycled. And on top of that, then those things that are buried are creating methane for hundreds and hundreds of years. And just so I asked Jessica and thanks for the quick reply. Give me an idea of scope. And these are numbers that are hard to wrap your head around. But and this is, you know, quick math on the go. So I apologize for that if I don't get it exactly right. But the numbers that we generally have is 181 between 270 970, 280,000 tons that we are putting in the landfill from our systems every year. So I wanted to quickly look at that. When you take out that 75% of our waste room could be composted, recycled, we're putting that meters rolling in well north of 100,000 tons of material that we are putting into the landfill today, this year that doesn't have to go there. I've been on this council for eight years. That's 800,000 tons of material. It didn't have to go to the landfill. That will sit there for hundreds and thousands of years creating methane, creating problems, and being materials that no one after us. And that moment of use can use 800,000 tons in my eight years for some people in their first term. You've only contributed 300,000 that.
Speaker 8: We have an opportunity.
Speaker 6: To do better. We have a mandate to do better. This is these are the decisions that have.
Speaker 1: Been being made.
Speaker 6: For generations of humans before us that have led us to this place where we are in an emergency, where our our planet is is experiencing all of these impacts from decisions, from people saying it's too hard right now. That's too hard. And not taking a second to say we. Yeah, it's hard. But we can no longer. We can no longer. That can no longer be acceptable. That on on my watch, with my vote, I continued to let 100,000. Over 100,000. Tons go into a place that it didn't need to and create the impacts that it's creating. And so I think with all of that and in respect to public to our Climate Action Task Force, who asked us not just to take action then, but to continue to take action until we have done everything that we need to do to fight this. I would really ask that we move this on from first reading to final, even if in the end that doesn't change your vote or your decision. Let us get to that public hearing and voted out of office reading into final consideration next week. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Clarke. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: I think your council president I, I don't want to repeat everything that Councilmember Clarke just said, so I'll just. I mean, really, tonight's vote is just to publish this for next week's consideration. So I'll be brief. Generally refraining from comments about preserving our habitability on this planet like Councilmember Clarke has just eloquently said. Um, so just a couple of things briefly. Residents have asked council to slow this process. They've asked me to ask council to slow the process that is moving forward too quickly. Just for what it's worth, this is the single track, single topic I've tracked the longest. I've followed this kind of conversation about pace you throw since before I was even a candidate. I'm excited to hear from the public next week and to finally vote on this issue. So pass or fail, it is time to bring this conversation to a vote. I sure would like to hear from the public before we make that decision. And so I like Councilmember Clark say that even if you were not in favor of the, you know, the the the concept, please allow the public to to voice their opinions next week. I also want to talk briefly about the things that I've heard from perfect ten residents. There are two major concerns. First, the vast majority of perfect town residents pay for trash collection, but do not benefit from it. You know, most of the people who live in and district tend to live in multi-family buildings. Many of them are large multi-family buildings, you know, hundreds or hundreds of units big. And these are the people who pay into the trash collection fee, as in they pay into the general fund, and they're subsidizing the fees for those single family residents and for small unit building. So as one of my colleagues has mentioned just a few minutes ago, who's saying that the single family homeowners are are are getting the the brunt of it? I would say it's the exact opposite. It's actually the apartment dwellers who are paying for trash collection, subsidizing trash collection and not getting it at all from the funds that they're. The fees that they're paying into the general fund are the. And yet the single family homeowners are benefiting from it. So I think this is only the most equitable thing to do for for for everyone, particularly considering we are the only city in the nation that are considering, you know, equity. Speaking of equity, an equity structure for those who cannot afford, you know, just barely struggling financially in Denver. And and we will have an equity fee structure just for them. Sorry. Rebate structure just to them. The other thing that I want to say is that trash collection in some areas of District ten are frankly frustrating. Specifically, there's there's a change of trash collection in Kyra's park that moved the collection from the alley to the street. I have had lots of conversations with dotty leadership and and, you know, the waste collection leadership. And I have sent lots of Congress residents to to that diary leadership specifically for them to directly address some of the concerns. And frankly, the folks in Congress are still frustrated by it. But based on my conversations with with party leadership, it is my understanding that the change was because of efficiency. Put another way, we add, as has already been mentioned earlier tonight in this conversation, we are short workers. While we're short workers in part, you know, we're in the great resignation or as the Biden administration wants us to call it, the great upgrade. But partly we're short workers because we don't have funds to be more competitive with a recruitment retention process and to be more competitive with a way to to make our workers most effective and efficient in the trash collection process. You know, we also don't have the funds to be greener with our trash collection itself. So as Councilmember Flynn had mentioned, you know, our trash trucks are contributing to those greenhouse gases. I mean, we could if we had the funds experiment with electric vehicle trash trucks and this fee will allow us to live our values and and electrify our or at least test or electrify electrification of our trash collection. And and still make sure that we have a process for people's waste to go where it needs to go. Waste as in reduce, reuse and recycle. Hopefully we'll just reduce. But but if we do need to send something out of our home, it can go to the appropriate place for trash, recycling or composting. Those electric trucks, along with a better fee structure, will help us more fully staff our trash collection activities and live our values. What's more, we could with if we had appropriate funds, we could consider trash trucks that are appropriately sized to return trash collection to alleys and neighborhoods where it makes sense, like perhaps Congress part. So I will probably say more next week, but but I'm encouraged that I feel like our colleagues will at least move this forward to publication. I hope that is the case and I hope we have a more robust discussion next week. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn. Backup.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Since I kicked this off, I appreciate the opportunity to wrap up and offer a little bit of rebuttal and clarification and thank you to council members. Can you and Cashman and Clark and Hines spoke with especially Councilman Hines. Let me kick off with just a few brief rebuttal remarks. First of all. The reason that multifamily and commercial properties. Multifamily. Eight and above. The reason that they have to pay private haulers for their own trash collection isn't that the city doesn't want to service them or wouldn't service them. But the state legislature many, many years ago bowed to the private trash hauling businesses and mandated passed legislation that prohibits Denver from serving them. I wish we would serve them and then we could all cover it out of the general fund. Right. That's the reason. It's not that they're doing some favor for people who live in single family or small multifamily. It's that the state lawmakers have said you can't serve them. The the private industry has to serve them. That's the reason for it. Thank you to Councilman Cashman for bringing out the 30% figure, 30% of the methane at at the dad's facility, Denver Arapahoe Disposal site. And we view that on a tour. Many of us. Several years ago, they convert the methane emissions to electricity. Goes back into the Excel grid. That's pretty good, too. Okay. But I made note here that councilman, that that reduces my five and a half ten billions of 1% by yet another 30%. And finally, Councilwoman Kenny, to respond and also to Councilman Clark, there's a false narrative that's being generated up here inadvertently, as I suppose that those of us who don't support charging a fee don't want to see increased diversion from the landfill. We do. We want to see it. We simply don't believe that our failure to impose a fee for our our program is the reason that it is the way it is. We will probably see this November because I believe it's already certified for the ballot. There is an initiative on the ballot that would mandate exactly what I was saying needs to happen. And Councilman Clark, every single dumpster I looked into had 50 to 75% recyclable or compostable material in it. I suppose that can be overwhelmed. That 30 to 82 year total of 82% of what goes to landfill is probably greatly consists of construction and demolition debris. That's why Portland, Oregon, has such a high diversionary because they mandate that it's not because they charge a fee to their homeowners. So those of us who don't support this, we want the same thing that the people who support this want. We want people to divert as much as they can. We simply don't accept that it's our failure to charge you a fee. That is the reason. In fact, I've had constituents call me and say, if you're going to charge me 21 bucks a month for my black card. Why am I bothering to recycle anymore? I'll just put everything in the black card. I would. I don't want to see that either. I want to see us delay a fee for at least a year, do the kind of robust education that we've never done, tell people. Does this thing go in the green card? Does this go on to purple or does it go in a black car? Educate them first and see how they respond without charging them a fee. In this godawful time of eight and a half percent inflation of Excel, a time of day pricing and other fee increases that are coming down the pike. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Flynn and I will go ahead and add in a few brief comments around this. The first thing is, if a councilmember tonight votes to move this forward and have it ordered published, I want to be clear that that doesn't mean that on final that council member is going to vote affirmatively for this bill. And. Really in listening to my colleagues, I'm thinking about the residents. A lot of folks talked about the planet, and I understand that. I understand it innately. I am a wildlife biologist. I went to school for this, but I also am an educator and it is next to impossible to get people to change their behaviors. If we don't tell them why, if we don't explain to them very clearly and explain again and again and again, because there's a certain amount of privilege that just goes along with really understanding these issues and getting into it. A lot of folks are struggling to just survive and stay in Denver, and as my colleagues kind of brought up their different pros and cons around it, that robust education plan is so important and to really implement that and work that plan. And the other piece is that there was an article that came out in The Denver Post today that according to the city of Denver, approximately 30% of our homes in Denver lack air conditioning. We used to have a swamp cooler. It used to work to cool our homes. There are changes in the climate that we know that not mitigating trash is one of the issues. But is it time to do that now? Or is the time to do the education plan? Make sure that we can help support our residents so that they can stay in their homes and be comfortable and be at a place to even hear the education that we as a city are going to put out, or are we going to pass over that and put another fee on them when they might be struggling with credit card debt, rising cost of living in Denver, inflation of student loan debt, etc. There's a lot of bills that our constituents are struggling with, and I'm really struggling with putting another fee on them on top of this without that robust education plan. And so, again, members might vote affirmatively to move this forward to the final reading and the courtesy public hearing that we are going to have along with that bill. But I want to be clear that that doesn't mean that that council member is in support of the bill, because some of us, as you can see up here , are still struggling with the impact that this is going to have on homeowners in the city and county of Denver, coupled with. An unease as to Dottie being able to even secure the trucks that are going to be necessary to roll out and implement this plan. I've been told by some city employees that sometimes it can be 2 to 3 and a half years to get fully orders in and secured. And then on top of that as having severe vacancies within Dottie as well to implement this program. Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 22, Dash 685, please.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Can each. I. Sandoval. I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I. Torres, I. Black.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: See tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: Flynn now.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Ortega.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 5: You have a nice two days.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council bill 20 to 65 have passed. To remind folks it will be on final reading next week on June 27, with a one hour courtesy public hearing. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 48 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to repeal the fee on composting and implement a volume-based pricing system for trash, including recycling and composting services at no extra charge, to facilitate improved waste diversion and its related environmental benefits.
Amends Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to repeal the fee on composting and implement a volume-based pricing system for trash, including recycling and composting services at no extra charge, to facilitate improved waste diversion and its related environmental benefits. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-7-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0570
|
Speaker 0: Councilmember Black, would you please put Bill 570 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 22.0570 be be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Council Member State Abarca.
Speaker 2: I'll be quick. Just want to go on record as a no for this.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Council member. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 570, please.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Can each. I. Sandoval. I.
Speaker 5: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I. Torres, I. Blank. I see the Bakken. Clark.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. Cashman. Ortega. So it's pretty great. I think we need to have a conversation if our leadership is going to be changing. This party should have some conversation with the mayor's office about where we're going and not having a. An agency without a leader for an extended period of time. I'll vote to move this forward, but I think that's a conversation this party needs to have with the mayor. Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the result.
Speaker 5: One need to advise.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-5 70 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Council Member Black, will you please put Bill 590 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance concerning the Airport Facilities of the City and County of Denver; authorizing the issuance of the "City and County of Denver, Colorado, for and on behalf of its Department of Aviation, Airport System Subordinate Revenue Bonds, Series 2022" from time to time, in one or more series or subseries, on a taxable or a tax-exempt basis, in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $3,980,000,000 for the purposes of defraying the costs of the Series 2022 Subordinate Project, and providing other details in connection therewith; authorizing the Treasurer, within certain limitations and restrictions, to finalize details, terms and other provisions of the Bonds, their negotiated sale, determination of Refunded Bonds, and to select the registrar, paying agent, escrow bank and underwriters; approving forms of and authorizing execution and delivery of certain documents; ratifying action previously taken; providing for other related matters; and providing the effective date of this ordinance.Authorizes the Manager of Finance, Chief Financial Officer to issue City and County
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0617
|
Speaker 0: Final consideration of Council Bill 22 dust 590 has been postponed until after the hearing on Council Bill 22. That's 589 this evening. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? I wanted to offer a comment around the foreclosure notice bill that my office and I worked on, along with community members in the Green Valley Ranch neighborhood, where we found out in early February that there were approximately 50 homes that were slated for foreclosure due to a very aggressive homeowners association. And I want to thank our different city agencies, our housing office host, the Office of Financial Empowerment and Protection, the multiple nonprofits throughout the city that acted as housing counselors . And so back to our attorney and then also the attorney general's office who helped us collect additional information and then our colleagues at the state House. The House Bill 22, Dash 1137, allowed a narrow window of opportunity for us to legislate and to require that, if any A wants to start foreclosure proceedings, they must first at least 30 days prior to that, they must first make sure that they are providing that homeowner with their rights and resources so they can be assured that they will know how to mitigate any possible foreclosure and stay in their homes. And so I would ask my colleagues for their support on that this evening. And that. Oh, we've got Councilmember Kinney. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ted.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President. I first just wanted to thank you. You have been just a fierce champion for not just the residents of your own district, but honestly, for residents across the state who might be experiencing these things in your advocacy for the state Bill. And I'm really excited to support this local bill that you brought forward. One piece that is related to the fight that has been happening in Green Valley Ranch is that some of those foreclosures began with things as simple as not bringing in your trash and recycling bins. And that was something that Councilman Gilmore and host and supportive advocates helped to dig up and bring light to. And I'm very proud of, in addition to voting for this bill tonight, providing those residents that advance notice. There is also a provision on the bill we just voted for, I think 685, the solid waste bill that prohibits H0 A's from charging any penalties at all for use of our right of way that we don't ourselves have penalties for. So it is not any more if this, you know, the prior bill that we voted on, if that bill goes into effect, it would reinforce the fact that we cannot even start the penalty or find process for bins in the right of way, much less have those fines or penalties start to compound to the point where they get to a foreclosure. So for those following that issue, wanted you to know that there was also something that we could do on this issue in that other bill. So together, trying to help to protect more of those homeowners from unconscionable fees or penalties, fines or penalties, plus from, you know, not having enough information about what's happening to them when this property starts to get these notices. So, again, thank you very much for this bill tonight and just wanted to draw that little connection to the prior bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Councilmember Kenny. An important line to draw where we're trying to work together on mitigating any negative effects through fines and fees for homeowners. And so appreciate your partnership as well. Councilmember Canete seen no other folks in the queue for the recap. That includes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Black, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 20 2-074 220 2-0630 20 2-640 20 2-064 120 2-066 420 2-066 520 2-066 622 yes 055 720 2-055 820 2-063 520 2-263 620 2-065 220 2-2065 820 2-066 120 2-066 220 2-066 320 2-068 420 2-068 720 2-062 920 2-063 920 2-064 720 2-060 920 2-0670 20 2-067 120 2-067 220 2071 920 2-0720 20 2-036 920 2-0370 20 2-051 820 2-065 320 2-067 320 2067 420 2-067 520 2-067 620 2-054 920 2-0550 20 2-056 920 2-064 820 2-055 520 2-057 120 2-062 520 2-059 120 2-059 220 2-059 320 2-059 420 2-059 520 2-059 620 2-059 720 2059 820 2-054 822. Dash 0617.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you, Councilmember Black. And it has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Pounds.
Speaker 2: I can eat. I. Sandoval. I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer I.
Speaker 5: Torres, I.
Speaker 2: Black eye. CdeBaca. Clark. I Flynn.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 2: Herndon. I Cashman. Ortega. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. The proclamation and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-0471 Changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University are required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-0475 Changing the
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance enacting a new article XI, chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring unit owners’ associations to notify homeowners of certain rights when initiating a foreclosure action and consolidating existing notice and disclosure duties for tenant rights.
For an ordinance enacting a new article XI, chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring unit owners’ associations to notify homeowners of certain rights when initiating a foreclosure action and consolidating existing notice and disclosure duties for tenant rights. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-27-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-25-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0471
|
Speaker 0: Good evening. Tonight we have six public hearings for those participating in-person when called upon. Please come to the podium on the presentation monitor on the wall. You will see your time counting down for those participating virtually. When called upon, please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will ask permission to allow us to promote you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen will flash and say, reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. You will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their Home Address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Black. Will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash 471 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes. Yes, Madam President. I moved to cut Council Bill 20 20471 on the floor for final consideration.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22, Dash 471 is open. Maybe. Please have the staff report.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon. Members of City Council. My name is from Senior City Planning City, Senior City Planner with Planning Services. And today I'm here to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 2017. South Franklin Street. The subject property is located in Council District six. In the university neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone his property to a district with a smaller minimum standard size at 9370 square feet. The subject property is more than twice the 4500 square foot minimum lot size of the required of the requested USB one. Therefore it is rezone a future zone. That amendment would create two separate standards, with each being permitted to have a single unit dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit. The property is currently currently in the urban single unit season district, which is which in this location would only allow for the urban housebuilding for minimum standard size of 5500 square feet. And as you can see on the map, the property is surrounded by properties also. So and you as you see with some others, three and some all could be two on Evans Avenue. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and commercial retail uses along Evanson. You can also see in the land use map that the University of Denver campus is only two blocks east and Asbury Elementary School is two blocks west. This slide shows that the subject property is located in a residential area and it gives you an idea of the character of the neighborhood. Now, if you take a look at the image on the bottom left of the slide, you can see that the existing one storey house is located all the way to the north of the property. This will allow for the construction of a union, a union new unit, without having to demolish the existing structure. Now, speaking of the process or informational notices have been sent out. According to the Denver Zoning Code Requirements Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on April 20th, and the city county public hearing was scheduled for July 13th, but then had to be rescheduled for tonight. To date, staff has received seven Komen letters, six in support and one in opposition to the rezoning. The letter in support of the rezoning outlines. The letters of support of the rezoning, outline their support to your rezonings in general and to this particular location. Given the size of the lot and its proximity to Evans Avenue, stop, receive one letter from the University Neighbors Neighborhood Association that is opposing all requests for variance that could potentially increase the number of residence vehicles and fits to be suspended until CPD can clarify the impacts and specific requirements are addressed. Given that this is a rezoning and not a request for a variance, stuff replied to the R.A. and explained They are different processes and different boards. The letter or responses are attached to a staff report. Now let's look at the Denver zoning code. We have seen five review criteria. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to rezoning. We have a comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. As they do in the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals of the comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Moving on to Denver blueprint Denver the subject properties mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context in blueprint Denver. And the future places map designated as low residential place names displays the display states have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Franklin Street is designated as Residential Collector Street, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. In Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to respond to a school district with a smaller minimum standard size. It's appropriate when a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. Well, most of the single unit residential loads contained in the same block as a subject property have a lot size consistent with existing us. You see district and I 5500 square feet or greater the block to the north northwest and northeast of the subject block show a clear pattern of lots that are smaller than the 5500 square feet more consistent with the US. You be one. Well, not as prominent. The block to the east of the block. To the west of the subject site site also shows a pattern of lots that are smaller than 5500 square feet. Therefore, there is a pattern of single unit residential, smaller lot sizes in the surrounding blocks, and the applicant's proposal of a district with a smaller in both size is consistent with the future. Places map and Blueprint. Denver. The growth area in Denver is all areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of this regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of at the top the plans. As discussed above. According to Blueprint Denver, it is appropriate to respond to a district with a smaller load size than the current district. If a pattern of similar nodes with similar uses exists in the surrounding blocks. It also specifically recommends the city diversify housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. This plan was adopted after the date of approval of the existing zone districts. Therefore, these are appropriate, justified circumstances for the proposed rezoning. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the US would be one. So this stuff does work. I'm in approval based on finding all the review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Franz, for the staff report. We have two individuals signed up to speak on this this evening. Our first speaker is Mitchell Benson in person and chambers here.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Fran. And good evening, City Council.
Speaker 8: Thank you for serving our great city and for taking the.
Speaker 1: Time tonight to review this matter. My name is Mitch Benson. I'm here on behalf of myself and my longtime friend and business partner, Joe Miller. Joe and I were born and raised in Denver and grew up together in Platt Park, just blocks away from the property being discussed. We both attended DPS, including the neighborhood schools of Asbury and South High School. After college, early career opportunities and graduate school took us all over the country. But we.
Speaker 7: Both knew.
Speaker 1: Deep down that we wanted to make our way back to the Mile High.
Speaker 7: City to build our.
Speaker 1: Businesses and raise our families. In fact, I.
Speaker 8: Personally owned a home at 1836 South Franklin Street since.
Speaker 1: 2010. I'm very familiar with the character of the university neighborhood, having lived off and.
Speaker 8: On just two blocks from 2017 South Franklin Street for the last.
Speaker 1: 12 years, as discussed 2017 South Franklin Street has a very large lot is right off a very lively Evans Avenue sits three blocks from the University of Denver and is in a group of blocks, as well as a broader neighborhood where there is.
Speaker 8: A pattern of homes being zoned for us to be.
Speaker 1: When looking at the zoning map. There's a established pattern in the surrounding blocks of smaller lots with similar uses. We believe that this free zone request is consistent, which with such uses and general character of the surrounding blocks and is sensitive to the existing character while offering residents a mix of uses. We're also confident the proposed map change is consistent with the objectives of the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040, including, but not limited to increasing development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. This free zone will allow additional housing close to the University of Denver light rail station and multiple RTD bus lines on Evans, AV and Downing Street. Also increase in the development of senior friendly and family friendly housing, including units and multiple with multiple bedrooms and multi-family developments. This rezone will allow for one rundown, two bedroom house to be replaced by two family friendly houses with accessory dwelling units that aid use are desired so that our grandparents.
Speaker 8: Always have the option to live close.
Speaker 1: To health and are in their grand grandchildren. This would also promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. This free zone will allow for a second single family house with accessory dwelling units in this location without placing additional burden on the city's infrastructure. In fact, the law already has two Denver water meters, so it is likely split at some time in its history. This was also. This will also increase housing in a walkable neighborhood within close proximity to city transit. And then finally, this will focus growth by transit stations and along high and medium capacity transit corridors. This free zone will allow for additional housing within 2.6 miles.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have a lot of OC. And so I might ask you to come back up and answer it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Our next speaker is Jesse Perez joining us via Zoom.
Speaker 7: City Council. The mayor behind. Okay. I'll take that as a yes. My name is just Allyson Paris, and I'm represented for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive Vaccine Command for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residence Council, front line Black knows, and I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And I reside in District eight and Christopher Herndon's district. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. As you all know, I have supported 80 youth since their inception into the Denver code, which allowed for them to be built in the first place since 29, when I ran for city council at large and almost 15,000 with no money or media representation or exposure. And in 22, I still continue to support accessory dwelling units. I would love to see them in every single district and neighborhood in the city, along with tiny whole villages, a safe outdoor camp. So I'm in favor of this rezoning. Good job, Kathleen. You got this for.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0471 Council Member Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Madam President. Mr. Benson, could you. I think you said there were two water meters serving the property that I hear there correctly. The reason I ask is there is a structure in the back on the alley that is not a garage, but it looks like it already is and perhaps made to you. Are there there are two water meters there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's two separate water meters. The only ones in use. There's, there's a shed on the back side of the property. But. But nothing else.
Speaker 6: So what does the second tap? What did that serve at one time, do you know?
Speaker 1: I don't know the history there. I just would assume that at some point it was split. It's a very large lot. And as Fran mentioned, the south side is is more or less just the empty lot that's connected.
Speaker 6: There was never a second house on the site.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Not to my knowledge. I don't know. And you.
Speaker 6: You grew up up the street or you lived up the street?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I grew up in Platt Park, just across in. Okay.
Speaker 6: But what is that second structure?
Speaker 1: There's a small house, and then there's a small shed. Much storage shed.
Speaker 6: Basically a storage shed. Yeah. And so if this is approved, you would you could apply for a lot split and develop two single units into it. Correct. So increasing it greatly increasing the value of that property. Correct. Okay. Thank you. A friend. How often do we rezone properties into a different letter of the code? So we're going from, as you see, to as you be. And so what we're doing on that block is we're saying this lot because it's a little larger, we're going to zone it B instead of C like everything else around it . In order that we can then put two houses on smaller lots. That's a little bit out of character for that block. How often have we done that?
Speaker 5: Well, we have that language in European that allows that when there is a pattern. So we.
Speaker 6: Are.
Speaker 5: We only allow it because of that language in Blueprint Denver that talks about the pattern. So we only recommend approval or we support the cases where we see a pattern. So we see that even when there might be some see actually we see that there is enough of these lots that have more of like the pattern of the be. We also are not supportive when it involves demolishing a house. So we've had cases where the houses smack in the middle and we try not to encourage demolishing. So but in this case, it's clearly all the way up the north. So you'd be pretty easy to develop south. So we think it's a because there is the pattern and because the house is not in the middle, we think that it is possible.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Just one last thing. Not necessarily a question, but a comment. In the staff report, it says that the the route, the RTT routes 21 and to 12 run on 12 hour and 15 minute had ways. They do not they run 30 minute headways. And that might have been 15 in the past. But with the service challenges RTD has had, I believe they cut back, but they're currently on a half half hour headways.
Speaker 1: So I know that.
Speaker 6: Maybe staff could just check the current RTD schedules on things like those half hour headways are not frequent transit. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Hoyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. Is it still.
Speaker 0: The case that.
Speaker 3: You cannot build an 82 on a lot unless you live on the lot.
Speaker 5: Unless you. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Live on the lot.
Speaker 5: Yes, that is right. That's correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm just. I guess that would be something that would be discussed in the site planning process of this, but never.
Speaker 5: Be able to permit the edu the owner needs to be. The owner needs.
Speaker 3: To reside on the lot. Yeah. Okay. So based on the information we've been provided tonight, the plan that's in place is not possible.
Speaker 5: And I mean, for what I understand and I'll leave this to the applicant, but it's him and his friend that they're going to once they split the lot, each one is going to live in one of the lots. So then you would have the owners living on site. So then they would be able to build the area after.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So it would be two separate permits.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: I guess I.
Speaker 3: Understand what you're saying. So just one last question. I guess to clarify then, is there a. Is there specific language in Blueprint? I understand.
Speaker 0: That there's specific language around.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 3: Situation we have here. Is there specific language improved in Blueprint that addresses spot rezonings?
Speaker 5: So I don't think there's specific language and maybe I could ask Andrew if he can confirm, but I don't think there is specific language about what we signing. But this wouldn't be a really spot rezoning because we're following like the guidance group in Denver. So it's well, like the fact that it's one rezoning doesn't mean that it's not on.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: But so it is about rezoning. It's just that blueprint. Denver hasn't an exception for this specific kind of spot rezoning in it. If everything around it is us uses you as you see and worries on in one parcel to USB one, that's a spot rezoning.
Speaker 5: There's a few inside.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Oh, we've.
Speaker 8: Changed the microphone.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 8: Andrew Webb, Community Planning and Development. I'm one of the team leads for our rezoning team. Typically, I would I would think of us of a spot rezoning where we're making a significant change that is in conflict with a plan, guidance for a specific site rezoning an individual property consistent with planning guidance would not qualify as a spot rezoning and blueprint does recommend as as Fran noted, changing or acknowledging that existing zoning on a site may not be a match in terms of lot size. So Councilmember Flynn talked about the letter at the end of the of the zoning description. Those refer to specifically the minimum lot size for development. And in this case, it's fairly clear that the much larger lot with development only on one side. And so according to blueprints, language about establishing different or changing minimum lot sizes, it would be consistent with that plan guidance and so therefore would not be what we would consider a spot zoning.
Speaker 3: Okay. But the criteria that we have to look at for the uniformity of context is would create a situation where this is not a uniform context. But is that correct?
Speaker 8: Well, the context the neighborhood context would not change. And that's I think that's what that's in reference to. The only thing that would change here would be the minimum lot size and that we applicants propose rezonings to change minimum lot size fairly frequently when their property doesn't actually match up with the zoning that exists. And so Blueprint has that language about, you know, if there is an existing pattern of of of lot sizes in that smaller that would be would would align with that smaller minimum lot size district then it is appropriate to rezone to those smaller lot sizes. And so in this area we look at the pattern of loss and in a particular neighborhood and if we see a variety like we do in this particular location and a pattern of smaller lots, we would support a rezoning based on that language and blueprint.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Clark.
Speaker 1: Then he.
Speaker 6: Becomes president. I feel like we've gotten different answers about this. So I just want to clarify and maybe this is something that we could get some follow up on. It was my understanding from previous conversations about aid use. Anyone can build the developers in Central Park. I've got developers in Platt Park who have built a house with an idea that the rule is in order to have two different leases or two separate groups living there. You have to live in one. But it has happen all the time in.
Speaker 1: That I've seen in.
Speaker 6: Entire areas of Central Park that were developed by some a developer who was never going to live there with an idea that the rules around ideas were around who can reside there, not about who could build in 80 because they could build in 82 and then rent that entire thing to someone totally different. I just can't rent to you in the front. I have to live in.
Speaker 1: One of them.
Speaker 5: No. So, I mean, anyone can build it. But once you primitive, like the person that lives in the area, you can you can move out and rent the whole house. Like, let's say I own a house in Central Park and I move out and I want to rent my house and I rent it to just one family . Like what you're saying? So they. And for them to leave and use it. You can you can do that. That's not allowed. People do it. It's very difficult to enforce it, but it's not legally allowed.
Speaker 6: They can read the entire thing. As long as I'm renting to one family that occupies the Adu and the house, they just can't rent the house to one person and rent the area to a second person.
Speaker 5: You can rent like in theory, you're supposed to disable the edu, so you're supposed to take the gas lines and you're supposed to remove the. I think it's like a closet. It's something. That it's crazy. But you're supposed to look like and we've had cases here where the applicant had to do that and then come and resign because they didn't know. So we brought before you like cases where like I remember clearly one case, one person that she did that and she got in trouble because one of the neighbors kind of got her in trouble. So she had to disable the new common reason for to your district. And then she was able to. The ability to get to you if it makes sense.
Speaker 6: I think we're talking about multiple things here. So I'll get back to you and maybe I will have some questions maybe for your ADD. That doesn't have to happen right now. But back to what you had said, and I think we both said anyone can build in 80. So a site development plan can come in to say I'm going to build two homes with two to use. It is about who then occupies lives and possibly owns there that the rules around but anyone you do not have to currently reside on the property to build in to you.
Speaker 5: Know I mean if you have a developer and the owner is already.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 5: I'm usou a one or b one. It already allows for you to use like if it's already sewn for you to use. A developer could come and build their house with an idea you and then the person that buys that house would have to be only one like. Or if the the person that rents the house, you'd have to be only one. But be sure you would have to be only the owner, right? Because if he was a renter, like if you were renting it out, if the developer was renting it, couldn't rent it. If it had the you. It makes sense because that. The 80 you. Bishop is right. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 1: It's just.
Speaker 5: That they went up like.
Speaker 8: That. It is correct that somebody could build an accessory dwelling unit and have two dwellings, a primary dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit on a property, and then sell that property. And then for two households to rent on that property, one living in the primary house and one living in the accessory dwelling unit would not be possible. The owner of the property would either have to live in the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit. But a developer or or a home builder can build a house in an ADU, but it does release back to who is actually living there.
Speaker 6: So anyone can build it. Anyone can build it. No restriction. And if I own that property, I can rent the entire property out. I just cannot rent to two different people. I is the owner don't have to live there. I can rent it to one person or one family unit and they can occupy the entire thing.
Speaker 5: But I would I would like to get back to you on that one, because that's one of the issues that we're looking at, the ideas in Denver about renting the whole house. That's that's been a big issue that we're like in the eighties in Denver. And I think Councilwoman Blake is in that committee. Like, we were like, that's one of the issues that we're having is like people don't want to build an 80 U because again, I've had multiple applicants that are having that issue that they don't want to build it because they're not sure if they're going to move out. They like this attaches me to a house because they can rent it if it has the issue.
Speaker 6: Yeah, my again, my understanding was now I have two units and a mortgage big enough for two years and I can't rent it like two units. I can only write one. But but I think I'll get back to you. I think we've gotten to the crux of what I was trying that what I heard or understood from this site plan wouldn't be allowed. It would, right? Because anybody can build it. It's about who occupies it. But I would love to follow up on the other question outside of this hearing, especially with everything we have going on tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clarke. The public hearing is closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 471. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. You know, for me, we have a lot split. The the main question is, does it become an anomaly in the neighborhood or does it fit into the neighborhood pattern? And the map that is in this slide deck shows that they're the larger lot size that exists currently is only 3% of that area . And the smaller large size that the applicant is requesting is about 27% of that area. So the new large size, it seems to me, would actually fit in better than in the existing large size and should be owner should the applicant end up making a profit on that at some point? We're living in a capitalist world and that's probably not the only case of profit in our city that year. So I do think it meets all the criteria and I will be supporting the application. So I do hope my colleagues will join me.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Madam President, I just want to briefly remark that I'm glad that CPD isn't recommending that you go all the way down to A because this large size could support, as you say, the minimum lot size of 3000. You can fit three units and three, eight years on there. I certainly hope that's not the policy to jump down to levels, but just one. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And also in support of this this evening, it does meet all of the criteria and will be voting in favor of it. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 471, please.
Speaker 2: See tobacco. I. Hines.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Can each.
Speaker 3: I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Ortega. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black CdeBaca. Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 6: An I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. Not everyone.
Speaker 5: All right. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 2: You have a nice.
Speaker 0: 11 I's Council build 20 2-471 has passed. Councilmember Black, will you please put council bill 20 2-475 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 20475 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2070 S. Franklin Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0469
|
Speaker 5: You have a nice.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes council bill 20 2-0475 has passed. Thank you for the staff reporter and the public or the comment. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0469 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 4: That council bill 20 20469 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20469 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 8: Members of Council Jason Morrison, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development, tonight, will be presenting the rezoning application at 1895 North Québec Street and 1800 North Oneida Street for the property more commonly known as Johnson, the former Johnson Wells University campus. The proposed rezoning is in Council District eight, which is Councilman Herndon's district. It's in the South Park Hill neighborhood. In 2021, the approximately 25 acre Johnson Wells University campus was sold to the Urban Land Conservancy, Denver Public Schools and the Denver Housing Authority. The former campus includes 13 buildings and a variety of open space. Demolition is not proposed for any of the existing structures, but rather these buildings will be adaptively reused for a mix of educational, residential and other purposes. The proposed rezoning includes only the East and south parcels of the former campus, which are highlighted here. This is an overall summary of the requests and a snapshot of the waiver the applicant is proposing to maintain the existing CMP district with the addition of a waiver to allow for the food preparation and sales commercial use and the Denver Zoning Code, which will allow local small businesses to use the existing industrial kitchens to produce a range of food items. The key difference here is that the program will no longer be operated by the university and will instead be publicly accessible. The current zoning on the subject site is CPI u03. The Zone District is a campus zone district intended to be applied to institutions and campuses of larger areas and scale where additional flexibility is desired to accommodate master planned campus elements. Additionally, the historic structure use overlay or Euro three applies to the subject site. The overlay allows for some commercial uses, including art studios and bed and breakfast lodging with limitations. The storage structure use overlay may only be established in conjunction with an underlying residential zoned district. Therefore, it is not part of the applicant's rezoning request because the requested zoned district is a mixed use zone district.
Speaker 7: The existing land use on.
Speaker 8: The site is a mixed use. It's surrounded by mostly single unit uses in the South Park Hill neighborhood, and this slide shows the existing context surrounding the subject site with the proposed rezoning on the bottom right. The Map Amendment application is before council this evening. All public notice requirements have been met since the staff report was published. We have received no public comments. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of a request. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans applicable to this rezoning plan 2040 Blueprint Denver as well as the East Area Plan. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies in town plan and they are detailed in the staff report. When looking at Blueprint Denver the future neighborhood context is special district.
Speaker 1: Staff finds that the.
Speaker 8: Proposed rezoning is appropriate and consistent with a special district neighborhood context plan direction because it will allow for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and introduce a new community serving an educational use and a campus setting. Blueprint identifies the future place of the areas. Campus staff finds that concurrent with the proposed office uses and affordable housing on the subject site through the all the R process is anticipated that the addition of new employees.
Speaker 7: Educational uses, incubation spaces and.
Speaker 8: Community serving food and beverage services that will result from this rezoning will contribute to the community's mix of educational and employment services.
Speaker 7: The subject property is.
Speaker 8: Located within the district's growth area. These areas are expected to see 15% of new employment growth and 5% of new housing growth by the year 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the growth strategy that is.
Speaker 1: Mapped in this area.
Speaker 7: There was an equity analysis that was conducted on.
Speaker 1: This particular property, and the subject.
Speaker 8: Site is in an area with high access to opportunities, specifically for the neighborhood equity index measurement. The area has a more moderate score when it comes to the built environment measure, including a score of zero for access to transit. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning to comply with waivers will introduce the food preparation and sells commercial use. It is anticipated that this will provide much needed access to commercial cooking and baking equipment, business development resources and fresh food for the growing residential population in the South Park Hill neighborhood. By maintaining the EPA base zone district, the applicant is exploring commitments to preserve public access to existing campus open.
Speaker 7: Space areas.
Speaker 8: And intends to keep existing campus walkways accessible to the community, thus improving the access to park and transit measurement. The subject's site is in an area that is low vulnerability to involuntary displacement. Concurrent with this rezoning application, through the large development review process, the Denver Housing Authority plans to convert existing student housing units into affordable rental units for seniors and others, which will further strengthen this indicator.
Speaker 7: The subject site is in an area that is.
Speaker 8: Below average housing diversity. In fact, the area scores low on all of the indicators listed on this slide. Although the current rezoning application to allow for this particular use doesn't propose residential uses.
Speaker 7: Multi-Unit, residential is in allowed.
Speaker 8: Use in existing and proposed based on district. CMP Maintaining this base, the district has allowed for the provision of affordable multi-unit housing on the former campus, and staff finds that this rezoning application will promote a positive impact on the housing diversity metrics in this area. The subject site has a job mix that is dissimilar to the city's overall mix of job types, with a greater emphasis on innovation jobs. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning of this new use will allow local small businesses to use the existing industrial kitchens to produce a range of food items and have access to onsite workforce development and training and.
Speaker 1: Culinary arts and business.
Speaker 8: Management, creating a more inclusive range of employment options, thus improving the area's low jobs diversity score.
Speaker 1: Blueprint also.
Speaker 7: Contains a high level.
Speaker 8: Policy language for the redevelopment of institutional sites, healthy foods and active living and custom zoning. The addition of the food preparation and sales commercial use to the Camp Zone district furthers all of these strategies by contributing to a truly mixed use campus that envisions.
Speaker 1: To be a community.
Speaker 8: Center rather than inwardly focused. The plan was adopted by Denver City Council in 2020 and contains both general and specific recommendations for the subject site. As mentioned previously, the applicant is not anticipating a major redevelopment of the site. Rather, they are proposing to adaptively reuse buildings while maintaining the campus environment. The proposed rezoning maintains the campus zoning on the site with a waiver that expands access for small businesses and promotes healthy food access. Therefore, it is consistent with the general vision set forth in the East Area plan. Identical to Blueprint Denver mapping and analysis, which I detailed before the subject site is mapped. A special district on the future context.
Speaker 7: Map and the East Area Plan.
Speaker 8: And campus on the future places.
Speaker 1: Map.
Speaker 7: Staff finds of the.
Speaker 8: Proposed rezoning is consistent with the future context and future places mapped in the East.
Speaker 1: Area plan.
Speaker 8: Seth also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of adopted plans and the re-use of some of the existing structures on the former campus. The application cites the recently adopted East Area Plan and many of the general land use and quality of life recommendations found within Blueprint Denver as a justifying circumstance for this proposed rezoning. This new plan guidance encourages potential revisions to the campus zoned district to better reflect the needs of the community and documents an increasing demand for affordable housing, open space and new community serving uses such as the food preparation and commercial sales use.
Speaker 7: The updated plan.
Speaker 8: Guidance for this area and the changing conditions justifies the rezoning to to allow additional uses and reinvestment in the public interest. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the zone district purpose and intent of the zoning district. And based on the review criteria, staff recommends approval of this particular application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the staff report, Jason. And we have one individual signed up to speak on this public hearing. Jessie Perez.
Speaker 7: May I be.
Speaker 1: Her?
Speaker 7: You have to stop. Harris Interactive for Black Star Action and Self Defense Positive. Akshay Kumar for Social Change. As far as the.
Speaker 1: Unity Party of.
Speaker 7: Colorado, the East Denver Residence Council Front, Frontline Black News and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 and I resigned in disgrace in Christopher Herndon district. So the exact district of this rezoning, I am supporter of this rezoning. And tonight I just had a few questions. After all, now what is the and my level for the units or residence that is going to be placed or converted into residential at this campus? And how many units? After all, we are in a housing crisis. It's not complete. Please ask those questions. I'll greatly appreciate it. This rezoning meets all five of the criteria, which is consistency with the plan's uniformity, with its regulations for the public health, safety, wellness. Justified in circumstances inconsistent with neighborhood consent zone, district purpose in that sense. So I'm in full support of this rezoning for my.
Speaker 0: You. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 469. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Jason, could you explain in more detail about the UO three the historic structure overlay? In the staff report it said that. The intent is to encourage preservation, protection, adaptive reuse and enhancement of historic structures. It may only be established in conjunction with an underlying residential zone district. Therefore, it is not part of the applicant's rezoning request. It's not an underlying residential zone district right now. So how did the overlay get to be there and. I guess that's what I need to explain, because removing it makes me think that we're we're not encouraging the preservation, protection and adaptive reuse, although that's the intent.
Speaker 8: Yeah, correct. So to answer that second piece, this certainly would not preclude the preservation of buildings in the future. But to answer your question, it's it's a very good question. And prior to 2010, we did a little bit of research. This particular site was re zoned our three in the old code, and it seems that every three district was given the zero three overlay. And so that essentially just kind.
Speaker 6: Of a transition to a campus designation in 2010. Correct. And they won't be automatically. Okay. So this is an artifact of.
Speaker 8: Correct. Okay. Yeah. And with we've seen this before in other rezoning to.
Speaker 6: Something in your estimation, does the removal of the or I guess if the overlay doesn't apply without a residential zone district on the line, it's not a not at issue, but I am concerned that that this does not afford any protection to the structures. Is there some other provision that protects these structures?
Speaker 7: So, you know, again, this wouldn't preclude.
Speaker 8: Any preservation of buildings down the road.
Speaker 6: And does it allow demolition or alteration?
Speaker 8: So it would essentially go through that process. So when when the particular demolition application is or when a building is proposed to be demoed, it would go through that process. And I know that Landmark's staff would obviously look at that in historic Denver has said that they would be willing to work with the current property owners to potentially identify buildings in the future.
Speaker 1: That might be.
Speaker 8: For this particular preservation.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And in fact, historic Denver owns an easement on Treat Hall, correct? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Jason, I have a question for you as well. So the residential on the campus, does it have to be associated with campus operations with. However, they're going to use the buildings that have the kitchens and all of that. Or can it be any type of residential anybody living in those buildings that are not associated with the operations of the campus?
Speaker 8: Correct. Yeah, like the latter.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. That was my only question.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash four, six, nine. Councilmember Herndon.
Speaker 1: Being my president.
Speaker 6: I think I firmly believe the criteria has been met and I would urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. I agree they have been met and look forward to supporting this this evening. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I don't know. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to tour the campus and to see how many kitchens are in the buildings there. But the opportunity that this presents for folks in our community, I know that revision is one of the organizations that is in Councilwoman Torres's district is very much involved in this. They have kept the director who actually ran Judson in Wales to work with the different organizations that are working out of those kitchens and creating opportunities for wealth building and people to become entrepreneurs. And so the kinds of things that can be happening in and for our community I think are very exciting. So and I can imagine some of these folks, you know, being some of the very people that eventually would have concessions out of the airport as well. So I'm pretty excited about what can be with not just the kitchen and opportunities of many of our nonprofits, but with the housing as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Member Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, DASH four, six, nine, please.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca. I. Hines.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Can each.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Hines. Cashman. Ortega.
Speaker 5: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Torres. I mean, black eye. Clark Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. To advise 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-469 has passed. Thank you for the staff report. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash 470 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1895 North Quebec Street and 1800 North Oneida Street in South Park Hill.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from CMP-EI, UO-3 to CMP-EI with waivers (campus zoning), located at 1895 N. Quebec Street and 1800 N. Oneida Street (and other associated addresses) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0470
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. To advise 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-469 has passed. Thank you for the staff report. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash 470 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 2-0470 would be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 470 is open. May we please have the staff report.
Speaker 5: The afternoon again? Members of City Council. My name is jump in your fill with CPD and no. I am going to present an overview of the MAP Amendment four 1450 North Olive Street. The subject property is located in Council District five in the Montclair neighborhood. The request is to rezone from ESU d x to ESU d1s, which would allow for an 80 you in the rear of the property. Well, all other forms and you standards would remain the same. Spuriously mentioned the property is currently in the urban edge single unit Dixon District, which in this location would only allow for the suburban house and the Urban House building for a minimum standard size of 6000 square feet. And as you can see on this map, while the property is completely surrounded by SUV X, we can see that this Colfax corridor is predominantly zoned ESU three and EMS three and EMS five to the east. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and some two unit uses to the east. We can also see a mix of uses along East Colfax that range from commercial retail, mixed use and industrial uses. This slide shows us that the subject property is located in a residential area but only have to sell through MySQL, a predominantly commercial corridor. Throughout the rezoning process, application modifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously April 20th on consent agenda. And to date, staff has not received any letters of support or letters of opposition from the public or from any ordinance. Denver's zoning code has five review criteria, which I will go over. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans of legal rezoning. We have a comprehensive plan 2040 loop in Denver and the East Area plan. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040, but I'll go over a couple of them. The MAP Amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now looking at Brooke in Denver, the subject property is mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place types. Displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. All live street is designated as a local or undesignated street. The growth area in Denver is all of areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Lupine also includes specific policy recommendations. We have housing policy number four that focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The Interior plan was adopted in 2020 and it updates the guidance in Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver within the East Area Plan. The subject property is within the urban and neighborhood context and designates the subject property as low residential single unit future plans. The plan recommends this subcategory in areas with single unit homes, with accessory dwelling units are appropriate also land use and build foreign policy number six states that the east area neighborhoods should be inclusive places that integrate missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units. The ESU D1 Zone District allows for a single unit residential use with an additional dwelling unit accessory to a primary single unit use. Therefore, the proposed ESU D1 next on district is consistent with the East Area Plan guidance. Therefore, staff finds that the request is consistent with the applicable adopted plans. Stuff also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of the regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. It justifies circumstance where this reasoning is clear that the plan sees the approval of the existing East Zone district. The city has adopted comprehensive plan 2040 in Denver and the East Area Plan A stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning to East one x meets the intent of this plan's. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context residential district and the ESU. D1 s on district staff does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much for the staff report, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak on this tonight. Jesse Perez.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. When I was just a person, I represented Black Star Action for Self Defense, Positive Action for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, front line Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of timber in 2023. And I resigned in disgrace in Christopher Herndon's district. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. As I've stated previously, I have supported every use since 2019 when I ran for city councilor at large and almost 15,000 people with no money.
Speaker 1: No or media recognition or exposure.
Speaker 7: And I continue to support them in 2022. So full support of this rezoning tonight, it meets all five of the criteria. Consistency with adopted plans, uniformity with district regulations. Part of this public health. Safety. Wellness. Means justified circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context zone district in that sense. So saying that it meets all five of the criteria for support of this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 470. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 470 Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. This is an.
Speaker 0: Area that was.
Speaker 3: Is covered by the East Area plan. Its use in the East Area Plan were discussed at length over a three year period with community feedback. So it is consistent with adopted plans. This has been discussed. Community has had plenty of opportunity to weigh in and I support this point. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And it does meet all of the criteria and happy to support it this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 470, please.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca. I. Hines.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Can I?
Speaker 5: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I. Torres, i. Black.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 6: Clark I Flinn I Herndon.
Speaker 2: I Cashman Ortega I Madam President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the result. 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Bill 22 Task Force 70 has passed. Councilmember Black, would you please put council bill 20 2-5, eight, nine on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1450 North Olive Street in Montclair.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1450 N. Olive Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0589
|
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the result. 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Bill 22 Task Force 70 has passed. Councilmember Black, would you please put council bill 20 2-5, eight, nine on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 20 2-0589 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-589 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam President, members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins and I am the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority here this evening requesting Council's approval of the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan to facilitate development of the 3015 Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area. The proposed urban redevelopment area is 37,000, square is a 30 is a 37,000 square foot site comprised of three parcels situated along East Colfax Avenue between Milwaukee and St Paul streets in the City Park statistical neighborhood. The urban redevelopment area consists primarily of the All End Motel and its parking lot. The motel is no longer operating, having closed to new patrons in March of 2022. The Island Motel. Originally, the Fountain Inn was built in 1959 and was one of the earliest motels developed along Colfax Avenue. It offered patrons Premiere accommodations for its time, including rooms fitted with radios, televisions and music equipment and was an attraction for tourists and locals due to the extravagant Gold Room restaurant and cocktail lounge located on the motel's first floor. The Gold Room was a popular choice for concert goers due to its proximity to several of Denver's well-known theaters and musical venues, many of which are still active today. Unfortunately, tourism and commercial activity steeply declined along Colfax Avenue following the completion of Interstate 70 in the mid 1960s. Many local establishments along the once bustling Colfax Avenue closed due to the loss in tourism business, including the Fountain Inn and Gold Room in 1969. The Fountain Inn underwent several management and ownership changes after its closure. The motel's business continued to decline throughout the late 20th century due to travelers preference of I-70 and exodus of nearby residents moving to the suburbs and an increase in criminal activity along Colfax Avenue. The property was rebranded as the only motel in 2003 and a new bar opened in the first floor restaurant space until it also closed in 2012. The restaurant space remains vacant today. Despite the multiple changes of ownership, the property has remained remained a motel. The only motel has operated for several years at well below its capacity, while displaying significant signs of physical deterioration. The all in motels deteriorating condition erodes the integrity of the historical property and is a detriment to Colfax Avenue, contributing to an inhospitable pedestrian environment inconsistent with the vision and goals for Colfax Avenue as described in Plan 2040 . The objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the urban redevelopment area. The proposed proposed project meets the following objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan to renew and improve the character and environment of the area and its surroundings by preventing or ameliorating economic, physical and environmental deterioration. Encourage the re-use of existing buildings, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse. To protect and enhance the character of structures designated for historic preservation. To promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy, including mixed use and commercial development opportunities within the area. To assist the city in cultivating complete and inclusive neighborhoods. Encourage land use patterns where pedestrians are safe and welcome to improve the economy of the city by stabilizing and upgrading property values and to achieve the goals as outlined in adopted city plans. A condition study was commenced in August of 2019 and finalized in June of 2020. This study supported a finding applied based on the presence of the following four conditions. Slum. Deteriorated or deteriorating structures. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Deterioration of sight or other improvements. And the existence of substantial physical underutilization. Or vacancy of sites. Buildings or other improvements. Defining a blight is a legislative finding by city council based upon the Blade study, which has been filed with the city clerk and other evidence presented at this public hearing. The redevelopment project will rehabilitate and adaptively reuse the historic motel building and construct a new four story approximately 15,000 square foot building on the southeastern portion of the site. When completed, the project will feature an 81 room hotel. Ground level commercial uses, including a restaurant, coffee shop, pool and lounge that would be situated between these two buildings that will be available not only by the hotel guests but also by the public via guest passes and approximately 700 square feet of affordable space for community serving users or businesses that may be vulnerable to displacement. In addition, there will be 56 surface parking stalls located behind the buildings. The project will be undertaken by a local developer, Ryan Tauber, with Inspire Colfax LLC, who purchased the property out of bankruptcy in 2016. Once completed, the whole hotel will be managed by New Waterloo, a hospitality and restaurant group from Austin, Texas, with extensive experience managing this type of project. The Fountain in was designed by well-known local architect Aubrey B Brailsford in the popular international style of the 1950s and sixties. In July of 2020, the current owner owner was successful in their effort to have the property listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Denver's history. As noted in this rendering of the project from 1958, the project will not only return the original building to its prior state, but will add new construction that is complementary to the historic structure. Any urban redevelopment plan and project must be determined to further the goals and objectives of Plan 2040 and its approved supplements. As this diagram intends to show, not every goal and objective of each plan can ever be achieved through urban renewal activities. However, we believe this plan and project does meet several key criteria of the city plan's. As this project is focused on historic preservation and quality infill development, we have summarized the relevant sections of Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the East Central Area Plan, with an emphasis on these key incomes are key outcomes. Sorry. So starting with historic preservation and these are intended to be color coded to be able to indicate which document they are coming from. So from Plan 2040, the prioritization of the reuse of existing buildings from Blueprint Denver states to incentivize the preservation of structures and features that contribute to the established character of an area and from the East Central Area plan. Encourage high quality design and character preservation in centers and corridors. Looking to those goals related to quality in-fill development plan 2040 states encourage quality infill development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and offers opportunities for increased amenities. Blueprint Denver seeks to ensure an active and pedestrian friendly environment that provides a true mixed use character in centers and corridors and the East Central Area Area Plan notes to provide additional support to community serving retail businesses and improve the development environment along Colfax. Blueprint. Denver also incorporates equity in the planning process by measuring three key indicators across the city. Access to opportunity. Vulnerability to displacement and housing and jobs. Diversity. An existing analysis from Blueprint Denver indicates that the urban redevelopment area lies within a context that is high access to opportunity, moderate vulnerability to displacement, and low job and housing diversity . The plan will foster development that will improve the area's equitable outcomes, including creating businesses that will bring new employment opportunities to the neighborhood. A specific addition to the project, based on the potential vulnerability to displacement of businesses along Colfax Avenue, is approximately 700 square feet of affordable commercial space designated for use by local businesses, artists, non-profits or other community serving users. In addition, there is involvement in this project has presented an opportunity to provide relocation assistance to the existing motel occupants. Colorado Urban Renewal Law requires urban renewal authorities to provide a feasible method for the relocation of individuals and families who may be displaced by an urban renewal project to adhere to this statutory requirement . Dora adopted a relocation assistance policy which closely mirrors the federal relocation requirements and outlines a process for Dora to follow when an approved urban renewal project will displace individuals. When the motel closed in March of this year, there were 37 individuals utilizing the property. To be clear, there were no families in the property. From the beginning, our efforts were not intended to simply relocate individuals from the motel to like housing, but instead to actively pursue much more suitable and stable housing for each occupant. To achieve this effort, we engaged a housing team comprised of Local Coffee LLC to serve as the relocation coordinator, be Connected LLC to provide housing navigator services as well as the Mental Health Center of Denver to provide occupant support services specifically for their clients occupying the motel. This slide outlines the process and benefits of the housing stability efforts, including preparation of individualized assessments, application and list support, as well as follow up support after lease signing to assure the housing plan is meeting the occupants needs. The assistance benefits include 42 months of rental assistance consistent with the relocation policy, which ensures that low income occupants will not be spending more than 30% of their income on replacement housing. Moving expenses are also covered, and every one of the 37 occupants were offered this assistance, regardless of their tenure at the motel. The relocation and housing stability efforts began when the motel closed in March and are continuing today. This slides provides this slide provides the status of our efforts to date. 13 of the 37 original occupants or 34, 34% have secured stable housing with another three or an additional 8% with lease applications pending. Four occupants have completed their assessments and are actively working with the Relocation and Housing Navigator team to identify units to meet their needs, including proximity to their employment. Since our briefing at Council Committee on May 24th, an additional three occupants who were previously nonresponsive have commenced the assessment process. Today, there are three individuals who were completed that process but have additional considerations that are making the ability to identify units more challenging. Two persons have been removed from the motel. Five individuals who are aware of but who have declined the relocation services have moved to other motels along the corridor. Three occupants moved from the motel at the beginning of this process and provided no forwarding information. And finally, one person remains at the all in and has not yet engaged in the relocation process. And as I noted, Ms.. Coffey is present to answer any additional questions related to this process. The Urban Redevelopment Plan was submitted to the Denver Planning Board on May 4th of this year with a staff recommendation to find the plan to be in conformance with the comp plan. 2040 Planning Board voted 4 to 1 to find the plan to be in conformance with Plan 2040 and its adopted supplement. The bylaws of the 11 member Planning Board require all actions of the board must be taken by the concurring votes of the majority of the members present. Or five votes, whichever is greater. As the Board was unable to pass the motion to find the plan to be in conformance with the plan 2040. Due to not meeting the required concurring votes. The matter has been forwarded to the City Council as, quote. Planning Board provides no recommendation on this matter and quote, A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. Per the urban renewal statute, if no recommendation is received from Planning Board within 30 days from their review, City Council may proceed with the public hearing on the proposed plan. This plan and project seek to remedy the biting conditions of the area through the adaptive reuse of a historic building, thereby providing clearly needed economic revitalization along the East Colfax corridor, all while supporting the collective goals of seeking housing stability. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will authorize JIRA to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by the use of tax increment financing. The need for public financial assistance is directly related to the extraordinary cost to eliminate the blighting conditions and support the adaptive reuse of the historically significant structure. Jurist staff has reviewed the development, budget and performance submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap in the $31.2 million development budget of approximately $3.5 million. This represents approximately 11% of the total project development budget. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through any property tax and sales tax increment generated only from within the tax increment area, which is coterminous with the urban redevelopment area for a period not to exceed 25 years. The utilization of property tax increment invokes the requirement that before City Council can approve a new urban redevelopment plan, they must find that an agreement has been entered into between Dura and the affected taxing entities in regard to the allocation of property tax increment to the project. There are two other property taxing entities Denver Public Schools and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, now known as the Mile High Flood District. Both taxing entities were notified of the proposed urban redevelopment plan following that notification. Both evaluated the impact the project may have on their ability to deliver services. Based on the project information provided, both DPS and Mile High Flood District have determined that the project will have limited impact on their ability to deliver services and have agreed to allow all increment derived from their respective mill levies to be paid to direct to support the project. In addition, there is a cooperation agreement between the city and Durham, which governs the collection and remittance of both the property and sales tax increment to support the redevelopment project. It also limits the term of the tax increment area to the earlier of repayment of the DURA obligation or 25 years. In considering the approval of the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan, City Council must make the following additional legislative findings that the boundaries of the area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. That written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the urban redevelopment area. Written notice was mailed on May 20th of this year, at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan, and this is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site. And thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site, that the urban redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of the area by private enterprise. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or nonresidential uses or any agricultural land that the city and county of Denver can adequately finance. And agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the 3015 East Caltex Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and DRA to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by this plan. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority has worked closely with the city and county of Denver, the developer, the Housing Stabilization Team and the neighborhood interests to bring forward this project. The redevelopment of this site, in addition to eliminating blighting conditions, will bring a new and exciting use to the historically significant building and generate new energy to this location along East Colfax Avenue. And we ask for your favorable consideration of this request.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Tracy, for the staff report. We have 19 individuals signed up to speak. I'm going to call the first few speakers and then we'll alternate back and forth. Our first speaker in person in chambers is Brian Tauber.
Speaker 1: He. Hmm.
Speaker 7: Good evening, city council. Thank you, Tracy. It's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. My name is Brian Tauber, and I represent the owners of the Island Motel. We purchased the motel out of bankruptcy in 2016 with plans to redevelop the site. Throughout our evaluation and review of various redevelopment options, we decided to move forward with the full renovation of the existing building as a hotel redevelopment project. Our evaluation lasted several years as we fully engaged with the community to hear firsthand what their idea of a successful outcome at this site would be. We've had multiple discussions with various foreigners, stakeholders, neighbors, business improvement districts and have received several letters of support from each to move forward with a hotel renovation project. Throughout the process, it was apparent a hotel would fill a void in the community as local neighborhood hotel accommodations weren't available, and it would further benefit National Jewish Hospital with the thousands of out-of-state visitors they have visiting their hotel annually. At the ground level, the hotel will incorporate a full service, restaurant service in three meals a day, a pool, a pool for hotel guests and the neighborhood to enjoy a neighborhood, coffee and pastry shop. We'll have a hotel lobby bar for locals. To use throughout the day to work or visit with friends and family. And we'll establish a partnership with local artists traveling through Denver and performing at the many music venues along Colfax for local accommodations for them. We have a total of 81 hotel guestrooms and 56 parking spaces. The hotel will employ approximately 120 people, many of which will be full time jobs with full benefits. Vacation and retirement benefits. We successfully added the project to the National Historic Register of Historic Places in 2020 as we felt it was a contributing structure of Colfax Avenue and it added to its rich history. The preservation of historic structures are also called out for in the newly adopted East Area Central Plan and a community benefit. Furthermore, we redesigned the ground level to accommodate commercially affordable space to be reserved for local businesses in need of affordable space for their small business to thrive. I'm happy to address any questions and ask for your support tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is joining us virtually. Jeff Harbaugh.
Speaker 7: Thank you. My name is Jeff Harbor, and I'm asking you to vote no on the tax increment financing for 3015 Colfax Avenue. The luxury hotel is not necessary at this time because it is not a community asset and it provides no community benefits. The developer has admitted that his own development plans are financially risky so that many lenders have turned him down, both before the pandemic ensued. Tracy Huggins of Durham said the corridors trouble and has been for some time. I have lived a block away from the motel for many years and disagree with this assertion. While his business may be troubled, the corridor is not. This is not a suitable investment property for him and it only extends to one property because the developer has no experience in developing or running a hotel. Mr. Turner has said that he has received criticism from lenders that boutique hotels don't have national reservation systems and cannot operationalize any efficiencies. Secondly, Mr. Turner has told that short term rentals this year are impacting boutique hotel stays, to be exact. A quick check of the city's database of short term rentals shows that there are more than 300 stores already in the city park and Congress park neighborhoods within walking distance of the site, according to the city's SDR database. A luxury hotel is not needed in the area. I recently toured the property today and met residents who have not been contacted for housing. We are working to connect them.
Speaker 1: With resources, not Denver Urban or not.
Speaker 7: Mr. Turner purchased the property. He told the city and county of Denver the residents and improvements will be made at the property instead. He made few, if any, repairs and was cited a handful of times for safety and health violations from the city and in Denver. The photos of the property on a research watch of more than six years shows the individual willing to let the property fall to total disrespect. Mr. Turner has cited in 2019 for the kitchen being in disrepair and electrical being out of code and safety issue. Again, in 2019, the elevator was out of compliance. In 2020, cited for fire alarm issues, constant pest infestations of bedbugs and rats has also been an issue during several meetings with Congress neighbors R.A. and South City Park Arno. Mr. Tober admitted displacing current residents who depend on city issued housing vouchers, which all in motel access. Some are still living there without any new housing identified. The motel is on a bus line and is centrally located, so residents are able to access community based services and travel to and from work. To shutter the motel would further victimize residents who call this home. Please vote no on this two.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is in person in chambers. Timothy Swanson.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Thank you for letting me talk here at 9:00 on a monday night, and thank you for engaging in this process. My name is Tim Swanson. I was born and raised in Denver. Proud to call this place my home. Five years ago, I moved into the neighborhood and live on the 1500 block of Saint Paul. Importantly, I live in the neighborhood. With my wife and two small children. We live about 200 yards from the island motel. Our block is an eclectic block. Besides my family, there are other small other families of small children, long term residents, even tenants with leases. Since we moved.
Speaker 2: To the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Five years ago, we have been waiting for a transformational project to change the all and to uplift the all in motel from its obvious blight and disrepair to something that the whole neighborhood can be proud of and enjoy. For five years, the entire neighborhood has been waiting for this vote and for this project to move forward. As you know, the South City Park neighborhood has already voted in favor of this project twice, overwhelmingly. It's part of the materials that were submitted with you for approval. This vote took place after the developer submitted the project, submitted the concept to questioning and to scrutiny from the neighborhood, people who have a vested interest. He made himself available and took anyone up on a phone call who called. This project has numerous benefits to improve the safety of the neighborhood and will help remove a long standing negative stigma of Colfax and the All in motel that will retain the building's historic and unique character. And also provide lodging for out-of-town guests. Importantly important, this can't.
Speaker 2: Be lost that this developer's.
Speaker 1: Local. He's not seeking to plant a best Western flag or American flag or some other cookie cutter hotel that is not unique to this neighborhood. He's here. He's local. All the neighbors in my neighborhood who have a vested interest in who live there are strongly supportive of this project. We are the ones who have to deal with the project or with the status of it now day to day, and we'll have to deal with it in the future. If there was ever a project for Tiff, I ask you all drive by, walk by. Tell me that this project isn't blighted and isn't deserving of Tiff. Because if not, I don't know why we have a tiff or urban renewal statute. It makes no sense. My family and my neighborhood, we strongly support this project. We urge you to vote unanimously in favor of this project. Will move our neighborhood forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mariana Thompson on Zoom.
Speaker 2: Can I be her? Can I be heard? What? Hello? Can I be heard?
Speaker 3: How are you?
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. And all watching Mariana Thompson as a volunteer advocate of our unhoused neighbors. I am very familiar with all in and I am speaking like Jeff before me said, against the approval of 20 2-0590. In the last three years, numerous people have been temporarily housed at all in and have received housing. Jesse Paris and myself have advocated for poor people and to people out of those four that we advocated for had gotten housing. Now, I, I am very familiar what the inside looked up like compared to the pictures. And I can say if this is that this is the owner and he would allow me, the tenant on our unhoused neighbors to live in these deplorable conditions. No, no. We do not need a luxury a luxury hotel. Urban renewal is the old fashioned name of. Gentrification. We do not. I do not believe in in in paying my taxpayer money towards this. And what about the unhoused people that got displaced council? Do you understand that, that some of them are being displaced as far as Lakewood went down the street. They had the bus lines. Down the street was a 7-Eleven. This was a perfect place, just like the Fusion studios a couple of years ago. That you guys. Approved up to be permanent housing. We need permanent housing from old motels. I, I am very upset with this. I live down the street on Park Avenue and called backs. And this these bids Colfax village is just trying to make everything luxury, luxury, luxury. When? Right now we are all suffering. We, you know, even people right now in low income housing are, you know, one step to this to the tent city. If you don't want tents in our city council, I would appreciate if you all vote no on this. Not just one person. Do the right thing. Remember, we can do better. Let's do better tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Ted. Easter Lucky.
Speaker 1: All right. Hello. Good afternoon. Good evening. Thank you. City council. First for for allowing me to voice my opinion. I appreciate the time. And. My name is Teddy. Three Lucky. I am my fiancee. Ellie purchased our home. We are four houses away from all in. We are extremely close. This is something we are passionate about. And we unanimously support the proposed renovations for all in hotel. Brian Tauber purchased the Island Hotel with the intent to keep the classic landmark, improve the quality of the hotel and to benefit local neighborhoods. Ryan needs city council approval to move forward with these hotel renovations. This project will add a hotel option for the region of Denver. Looking on Google Maps, you can see between the neighborhoods of Cole, Clayton, Park Hill, Whittier, Skyline City Park, South City Park, Congress Park, Montclair. There are little to no hotels available. Given the amount of hospitals in the area, we would benefit from providing families and friends of patients staying at the hospitals with a place to stay when they visit their loved ones. This project will also improve the beauty of the neighborhood. This project includes keeping the existing structure and adding an additional structure to increase capacity and improve the exterior of the buildings and remove this blight that we walk by every single day. This project will also add additional businesses along Colfax. As Bryan mentioned, he intends to add small businesses a coffee shop bakery. This brings in this business 1 to 1. It'll bring in additional businesses. This will help increase the safety. And when we bring a child to our neighborhood, this will help us feel more safe in the area. In conclusion, we're all in for supporting Bryan Tauber in the hotel renovation. I urge city council to approve this project. Thank you again for your time and your support for this renovation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker joining us virtually is Tyrese Howard.
Speaker 2: Counsel. I'm curious, Howard. Excuse Action Network Member. I'm here to ask you all to vote against this bill, this proposed check and finance. I have known many people over the years that have stayed at the all in and time of desperation without housing. And it has been one of the critical hotels that is accessible for folks who are needing that kind of an emergency housing situation. They have been more accessible in terms of, you know, folks that don't have IDs and the city as well as other service providers have utilized them a great deal for putting people in temporary hotel voucher situations to get rid of this hotel and turn it into a luxury apartment. Is baffling to me that. We are actually considering using our tax dollars, public tax dollars to destroy low income emergency housing and turn it into luxury hotel. That is literally what we talking about right now at a time in Denver when we have the largest housing crisis ever, when housing is the big issue we're talking about, when you have hundreds and thousands of folks on the streets and shelters and so on and so forth every day. This is the biggest thing we're talking about. And meanwhile, it's before council to vote to turn one of the the viable options we have into a luxury a luxury hotel. This is very disturbing. I think it's really important to note also that even if all of the current residents of this hotel are moved into a great housing situation, which is much needed and very much.
Speaker 3: Hope, that that is something the city and partners can achieve in this time frame.
Speaker 2: Even if that were to be the case, that doesn't change the situation that this is a a low income, a cheap, attainable, temporary housing option, that that is badly needed in our city that would then be gone, would be off the table, would no longer be an option. We can't just be looking at the immediate situation. We have to be looking at the long haul. And the long haul we should be looking at is what what what is needed in this property. This property is needed to be retained as a quality property for low income folks. The city could have bought this property in 2016. It should buy it now and retain it for low income people. And I ask that the city vote no on this and.
Speaker 3: Instead move to buying the island and turning it.
Speaker 2: Into low income housing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Costa in chambers.
Speaker 8: Good evening, City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you guys tonight. I would like to start off by saying I come from a very large Italian family. We've made a lot of sausage in our days and this is quite an impressive process. So thank you for what you guys do for the city and thank you for your time. I'm hoping to win an award. I live three houses behind me, all in my with my wife Emily and our two small children. I have a five year old son and a two and a half year old little girl. We spend a lot of our time in the alley, riding bikes and teaching my son how to ride his bike and water in the plants and the bushes in the alley. And this neighborhood is really important to us. I've lived in Denver since 1995 and we've lived in this current house for about six years.
Speaker 6: And this would mean.
Speaker 8: A lot to us. I know from a macro level there's been a lot of good data and information presented of how this alliance with the City Youth Development Plan.
Speaker 6: How this generates jobs.
Speaker 8: How this reduces blight. But I just kind of wanted to address the micro aspect of this and the fact that it has overwhelming support from our Self City Park Neighborhood Organization. We attend meetings regularly. This also has strong support from the Congress Park Neighborhood Association as well. And like I said before, you know, for the people that live on that street and in the surrounding blocks, this is a big deal for us. We live with this every single day.
Speaker 6: And it will make this area a lot.
Speaker 8: Safer.
Speaker 1: And a much.
Speaker 8: Welcome area to raise our children and enjoy the city and.
Speaker 1: Why we live in the city.
Speaker 8: So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Would you introduce yourself for the public record?
Speaker 8: I apologize. My name is Jason Curtis.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 8: I want to quick with the Italian joke. I think.
Speaker 0: Now. All good. All good. We appreciate it. Thank you. Our next speaker is joining us via Zoom Brandy any minute.
Speaker 2: Sorry, everybody. I'm very aggressive right now on what I try to be brief. Apologies about the of women, the black Muslims. They were too close to each other. That's what I want to say. This is. This is, like, ridiculous, you know? I was on house. Sharif that got me in the lane due to my heart condition in the beginning before COVID hit and a winter storm. It has. It served its purpose for what I needed it for. Mariana Thompson and person who helped me receive housing after that due to some some other nonsense that happened at all in . Like after I kept my my room for almost like six, eight months of like that. I can't remember. Um, that I received shortly after. Now, what I want to say about this is it. To. What do you say restoration restoration means to me? That you're going to fix the actual building, not tear it down and build a new building?
Speaker 3: Is luxury okay for.
Speaker 2: Whatever new vacation you're going to bring into the community? Okay. I don't care about this that there's the National Jewish Hospital, all that stuff. Everything's been rebuilt to suit one group of people. Gentrification is only for one class of people. I must say it again, like I said it last week. This only suits white people. White people. LGB. GQ People with a high paying jobs. That's what's here. That's what it supports. It does not support the black community that used to live in that area. It used to go to East High School, used to be all around that area. It doesn't. What have you added? Like, you know, pushing our people out. You know, you push our black community out, you push our Hispanic community out, and you only bring in more. High paying, upper class white people. That's what this is for. Now, if the building is messed up, you only have to blame the owner if you're not bringing enough money to that area. Blame yourself. The city of Denver. When you decide it's build I-70 and you took the tourism money from that area, then it became how it is. This is your fault. Not the city, not the people that live in the city, but the actual city. Well. And they decided to transform the city to suit financial needs. Make this building for what it is. We started building. He the humans there. You do not have a place with them. You know that. Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 0: Was Charles.
Speaker 2: Nussbaum, but we're not seeing him online. So we'll go to Jesse Paris. Hello. Hello. You're in person.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Even in council. I'm Charles Nussbaum. I live in the 1400 block of Detroit Street for the last. Nine years. And for that I was in the 14 in block of Clayton Street. So I've traveled Colfax between New York, Josephine and Colorado Boulevard segment for 22 years now. And I, I really support all the people that are speaking against it. However, I beg you to support this proposal. It's a critical need for and this catalyst of the redevelopment in this stretch. For years, we didn't have a rec center. Now we do. For years, we didn't have a walkable grocery store. Now we do. The national and local opioid crisis has caused a need for methadone clinics. We have to. We need a hotel to serve the general surrounding neighborhoods in a way that is not being met. I do sympathize with the housing shortage and I do support the efforts that have been made to re locate the people and the employees at this location. I've got a new East graduate. But during his years in high school, my son has seen drugs being thrown from the window when the police have been at the bottom of the hotel reading activity there, that shouldn't be happening on Kovacs or anywhere. I don't think that we want to continue that activity. And I think the surrounding neighbors. Deserve that. I think that. Overall positive redevelopment of this historic building is needed and appreciated. And the restaurant and the bakery and the spaces being offered for small business and artists, I think is important. I think there is no walkable hotel. It is time for people that are attending events or productions there. I think. National Jewish deserves to have a hotel within walking distance for visitors. I think the neighbors need a hotel for guests to stay and be able to walk. I think people going to City Park Jazz need a place to stay. If they want to stay and enjoy the community. So I thank you for your time and I hope that you'll support this proposal.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. I will go back online for Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 7: Members of council and those watching at home. My name is just personal representative for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive action can work for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, front line black news. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And I reside in District eight in Christopher Herndon's district. I am definitely against this rezoning tonight. As previous speakers have already spoken. I am. I am still currently housing advocates. I have helped several people throughout the years. Some of them have actually spoken tonight. And. The organization of the part of the homicidal world has went out of our way to house people that were. And homelessness at this location. One person in particular I used to advocate for Preach. He has been house for two years. Prior to this he stayed at the all in. And I can attest to the deterioration.
Speaker 1: Of the building.
Speaker 7: Because I witnessed it firsthand. People have almost got electrocuted to death in that building. The elevator was very. So the building is definitely, definitely in disrepair. What I would like to be made into another fusion studio or something of the sort, because we have a housing crisis.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 7: Instead of turning into luxury apartments like Howard spoke earlier. We have a housing crisis in luxury apartments in the area of Denver. It's not a solution or a means toward a solution to our housing crisis that we are under. This is just more gentrification as usual. Urban renewal is just sort of for all the undesirables out. It's a lot of keep talking about crime.
Speaker 1: And and.
Speaker 7: It's unsafe over here because they allow this area to go into blighted conditions just so they can have a reason to tear it down and build luxury hotel 1881 room hotel. That's not going to be for people that are currently experiencing homelessness. So I'm definitely against this. Please vote no on this tonight so that you have a heart and a conscience.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jesse.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Megan Wieland. Online.
Speaker 2: My name is Megan Whalen. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I am a resident of the Capitol Hill area, and I'm here on behalf of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, otherwise known as chair. And I'm the chair of the Urban Planning Committee. And I'm just here to to report on our RINO's position on this and that. On Thursday, October 28th, 2021, our Board of Directors held a regularly scheduled board meeting, and at that meeting we discussed this project and had a presentation. 20 board members voted in favor of lending our support to this project as described, none opposed. And we had two members, board members that abstained. And without belaboring all of the points that you've heard, I know it's been a long evening. I'll just give a quick summary. The reasons are, number one, we do feel public private partnerships are essential to Denver's future and in particular with regard to this project. Number two, this investment group has appropriately engaged with us. They've demonstrated a commitment to working with the R and O's and community investments with neighborhood organization. Input is paramount and we feel like we've been heard in terms of our concerns. Number three, our board believes in preserving historic properties throughout Tron's ten neighborhoods, and the redevelopment of this property is consistent with our organizational goals to save older architecture. Number four Activating community spaces and bringing Denver sites together is critical. That's part of our mission. This project will provide unique public spaces along the Colfax Avenue corridor, and the neighborhoods serving amenities are to be recognized. And finally, innovative design and creating multiple uses in the South City Park neighborhood make sense. Uses such as hotel accommodations, which we have heard a number of times are in need. A café and a pool with some access to our neighborhood will be permitted in an area of the city requiring activation. And in closing, I'd just say, you know, we've been promised a number of things over decades with regard to this property . And this feels like a partnership with Dora that we're we're very supportive of and at the same time acknowledging all of the the concerns as represented here. So thanks for your time this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker online is Jerry Burton.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Burke.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. My name is Derek Burnham. We have house after network number. I was like, I'm a veteran. This is where I do not understand what you are. We have a housing crisis here. We came out that unhoused neighborhood that we already have and those that live in transitional housing and those that are living in shelter. But yet you want to take taxpayer dollars. To make a luxury apartment. Luxury apartment. This. If you live in a tent. If you live in a shelter. And you get apartment. That's luxury. I don't know what y'all are thinking about, but it seemed to me that y'all are perpetuating the homeless crisis for every. Valerie. I know. However, the city council is going to be running for other offices or they no longer can run for these offices. But the point is, the city could have bought that building and they could do it now if another monument or anything like that and put low, affordable housing on that property. Now we got more. Luxury apartment. Yeah, we know what to do with. But we still have homelessness in our city. I don't know what you are doing. But it does not take a rocket scientist to make a rocket. But y'all have to understand that in order for people to have some stability, they must have a place first. And y'all figured that equation. And y'all need to really think about this. And I want you to vote no on this, because at the same time, we are going to have more on how neighbor living on the streets and the city and county of Denver. Think about it. Think about it. We just we get celebrate Juneteenth. And let me tell you something. It's the same B.S. that will going on in 1865. That is going on in 2022. Y'all don't care about people. I have put more value in my and brand businesses to this. Establish to the city that y'all don't have a conscious. And with that being said, I would say to vote no, simply vote no. And bodybuilding and make a low income. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jim J. It looks like we don't have Jim Jay with us. And so we're going to go ahead and move on. Very. In.
Speaker 3: Hello there. My name is V Reeves. I'm calling to vote to urge that the vote is a no on creating this property into a luxury hotel using taxpayer money. I'd like to focus on two terms that have been used. And really think about what that means. One of them is light. Unfortunately, people have talked about how this is a blight in the neighborhood, suggesting that it spoils or damages the neighborhood with its existence. It has been an asset to the community to, again, as people have mentioned before. Support housing and support the you know, the the trajectory that people have to take in order to get that stability, to get permanent housing. I am also a former case manager and have myself used this hotel as a means for some of my clients to seek refuge. When you take this away, you take away another tool that case managers have to be able to offer a temporary support and relief while we're searching for other options. And I can promise you that case managers are searching like crazy for beds and for, you know, temporary protection from the elements while we try to find permanent housing . Unfortunately, we've seen from the Department of Housing Stability own numbers that we're just not having any additional housing being built. What was happening since since the year of. 2015, there was no new market housing without government assistance that was being built below 60%. Am I in Denver since 2015? That's seven years. Through service providers. They have plans this year to build 523 housing units for under 30%. But there is a need of 32,000. When you have a viable option, a location that works by the bus lines, by the service organizations, by the resources that people need. When you talk about another word, integrity. The very first speaker talked about preserving the integrity of the neighborhood. This is called facts, and we are displacing people at alarming rates. We are forgetting the integrity definition originally, which is moral, upstanding ness. And here you are choosing to this place further and continuing to ask yourselves why we have a housing crisis to begin with. So I urge the city instead reconsider purchasing this building and allowing it to remain a viable option for people as it has for so long and do not continue to contribute to the displacement of our community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Emily Clarke.
Speaker 3: Hello. Good evening. My name is Emily Clark. I'm a Denver resident, and I live on Monroe Street. I'm here today to express my strong support of the redevelopment plan for the Allen Hotel. I live in the South City Park neighborhood in which this property is located. I truly believe this plan will contribute many benefits to our community and is consistent with the East Central Area Plan. It will reduce blight, become a catalyst for other improvements, and provide services that are currently missing. It will create many jobs and provide an important piece of.
Speaker 2: Infrastructure.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 3: Carfax and the Blue Bird District.
Speaker 2: All while preserving an historic structure.
Speaker 3: I was able to visit the Austin, Texas Hotel managed by New Waterloo, the same company that will oversee this hotel.
Speaker 2: It was a beautiful building.
Speaker 3: Well maintained and included a thriving restaurant and retail store. If this hotel is to be anything like it, we'd be incredibly lucky. I would like to encourage City Council to approve the redevelopment plan as well as the associated funding mechanisms. Thank you for your time tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lenny Sorrels.
Speaker 2: Members of Denver City Council. My name's Lenny Cyrus. I live in the Congress Park neighborhood. I'm requesting that you vote no on the tax increment financing proposition for 3015, it's Colfax Avenue, which is operated as the Oakland Motel. For the record, it's correct that a previous speaker said by the name of Jason Mentally Covers Park neighborhood R.A. has now provided support for this project. The current owner, Brian Herbert, wishes to build a boutique hotel. He has informed me and others that he has repeatedly been turned down for financing because the project was deemed too risky prior to the onset of the pandemic due to the lack of branding, his own lack of experience in managing a hotel and the project's lack of a universal hotel reservation system as well as the proliferation of short term rentals. Once the developer realized that his dream of owning a boutique hotel and a changing dynamic of short term rentals was problematic. He decided to defer all maintenance and have his property deemed as white in order to secure tax increment financing. What is trouble is that the so called blight is confined to his property only because of the lack of attention.
Speaker 3: To make repairs.
Speaker 2: That Mr. Torba promised to take care of in 2016. Tax increment financing should not be used to assist a developer with a project that is otherwise not viable due to a lack of business acumen, community need or benefit or market demand within walking distance. There are many short term rentals. There are over 300. And there are also several ends in bed and breakfast. The site currently accepts temporary housing vouchers from the city county of Denver, Denver Police Department and Mental Health Center of Denver. How do I know this? Because I work with a group of volunteers and service providers who have referred displaced neighbors to the motel. What is the tax increment financing proposal was initiated. The management of the hotel notified residents of their impending evictions. Your vote to affirmative will result in dozens of vulnerable people being displaced. I toured the property recently this month and talked to several people who have been told that they must move no later than July 1st. They have no place to move to and no housing.
Speaker 3: Has been.
Speaker 2: Identified for them. They state that there was one initial contact about moving from the Alton Motel, and.
Speaker 3: That is all they have heard since that time.
Speaker 2: I gave these residents my personal email address so I can follow up with them to get them assistance. The state of the facility on the inside and outside has not been maintained that conditions are absolutely deplorable. However, Mr. Travers management company continues to collect residents from the continues to collect rent from residents living there. I made notes of several Denver code violations of the property that are present today. There are very few motels that accept housing vouchers and even fewer places that accept tenants without identification whose documents may have been lost in a move displacement or suite of assets such as hotel vouchers for city hall immediately. We're going to go ahead.
Speaker 7: And.
Speaker 0: Move on. That was the time we have allotted for each speaker. Our next speaker is Cathy Price.
Speaker 2: So. My name is Cathy Price. I live on Monroe Street as well. I am a resident of South City Park, but I'm here to represent and speak on behalf of the City Park Neighborhood Association, for which I am the current Treasurer. I just wanted to address the members of Council to say that I am here on behalf of the City Park Neighborhood Association in support of the redevelopment of the Allan Motel property.
Speaker 3: As proposed by Inspire.
Speaker 2: Investment Group. We have performed, we being the Neighborhood Association, have performed several surveys of our membership once in 2019 and again recently in March of 2022. And those survey results have shown overwhelming results and support from our neighbors, from our members of this redevelopment. In 2019, the membership voted at 9090 5%. I do not have the number that voted at that time, but 95% of members voted in support in March of 2022, after Bryan and Inspire Investment Group came to the South City Park Neighborhood Association meeting to address proposed changes. Provide a presentation along with Dora. In March 2022, we sent out their second survey. That survey was open from March 28 through April 10th, so significant period of time to obtain the opinions of our members. And the results of that showed 88% of the current membership are remain in favor of this project. So with that being said, again, just showing the support on behalf of the R.A. that the neighborhood or excuse me, that the hotel sits within. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Blakey.
Speaker 3: Oh, hello, council members. My name is Katie Blakey. I'm also a member of ten and 11 District ten. I send up to speak to ask that you please vote no on this bill. I don't think it's appropriate to use tax increment financing for this project, which provides limited community benefit. The owner purchased the property in foreclosure, understanding how much work the building needed and has allowed the property to fallen into further disrepair in the six years they've owned it. This type of funding mechanism should be reserved for special projects that will deliver a significant.
Speaker 2: Benefit to the community.
Speaker 3: According to a report from the American Hotel and Lodging Association. Denver Hotel occupancy rates year to date are averaging about 58%, which is well behind the 74% occupancy rates of 2019. Boutique hotels in particular are risky business. Venture restaurants, cafes and even pools are facing significant staffing shortages. In light of this, it's inappropriate for the city to take on this additional risk when we're facing increasing costs, inflation and record levels of homelessness and displacement. Also, and listening to the presentation, it sounds like this project will take money away from Denver Public Schools from the deep levy. If you could please clarify what exactly that all means. Like many.
Speaker 2: Others who've spoken, I'm concerned about the people.
Speaker 3: Who are being displaced from the hotel and wish we lived in the kind of city where that consideration carried a real weight. Thank you for your time and please vote no on 20 20589 and 20 2-0590.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Christopher Johnston.
Speaker 8: Yes. Good evening, City Council. Thank you so much for this time.
Speaker 1: I am asking you to vote yes and I am.
Speaker 8: Testifying in support of the Borough Proposal for 3015 Colfax. I also live with my wife, young children on the 1400 block of Milwaukee Street. So just across the street.
Speaker 1: From this property.
Speaker 8: We need to be taking plywood down from Colfax windows, not putting more up. The request being put forth by Dora will help accelerate the Greektown business district out of the stagnation that COVID created and anchor it for many years to come. As has been mentioned, the hotels that this will be modeled after have been extremely successful, whether.
Speaker 1: It's in Austin.
Speaker 8: Washington, D.C.. In my discussion with what local businesses still are present, at least in the Greektown business district from Lake Steele down to York. The excitement and possibilities this project creates are obvious. I won't belabor the points with regards to hospital support, local residents support commercial space that has been.
Speaker 1: Mentioned and how.
Speaker 8: The growth will help support the tax base for our city. This has been in its state for decades. This is not Brian doing that. It it's in this current state. And I think his proposal has been the only one for a very, very long time that will actually bring back some activation to the Greektown business district in this area of Colfax. I know that is being used for small number of housing.
Speaker 1: Vouchers, but I.
Speaker 8: Think we shouldn't withhold future municipal support from a business just because they.
Speaker 1: Participate in the voucher program. That seems more like a punishment to me.
Speaker 8: I think voting no will actually disincentivize future voucher enrollment and resources. And as has been presented, there's been extensive work to that. No one will be displaced. It's also been said that the planning board, though, coming forth with no recommendation, was merely because there weren't enough people present to show what was overall a supportive vote in favor . So yeah, please vote yes to help this area of Colfax. Vote yes for your constituents who want to see Colfax thrive.
Speaker 1: And don't let this.
Speaker 8: Property remain in its blighted state for decades to come. Without your support, this is sure to happen. Thank you so much for your time and for your service.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 589. Council member.
Speaker 3: Sawyer thinks that a President Tracy, one of the speakers did bring up a great question that I think is important to clarify for everyone, and that is exactly kind of what tax increment finance financing does in relation to the three taxing entities in the city and county of Denver. So if I may, Councilwoman, I'd like to both answer that question and maybe give an additional little bit of additional context to maybe clarify some other agreements as well. So so tax increment financing is a mechanism by which only newly created revenues as a result of the redevelopment are made available to Doura.
Speaker 2: To help reimburse.
Speaker 3: Costs that the developer is incurring. So when the other taxing entities evaluate the project, they have to first decide is the project going to occur? And if so, what would those new revenues be? That again, but for this project wouldn't be there. And then more importantly, what does the project itself do as far as impact their delivery services? So taking Denver Public Schools, this is proposed to be a hotel project. So therefore there are not new residents that are coming in to the school district system that they would need to assist. And so very, very frequently, when it is a commercial only project, that is the viewpoint of DPS. Conversely, when it is a project that has a significant amount of residential or just any residential, they look at that evaluation differently. When it comes to urban drainage, this is part of an existing network of of utilities that they participate in. And so they also agree that given the size and scope and scale of this project, it was not going to have an impact. I want to circle back to again those revenues that and the and the structure that we are pursuing, which is that the developer has to finance all of the project. He only stands to benefit if the project is successful and therefore actually generates an increase in property taxes as well as sales taxes. So there is no risk to the city. This is only capturing those taxes that are generated within the boundaries of the urban renewal area. So it would be any sales tax generated by the project as well as property tax above what is currently being generated. I hope that helps. Yep. Really appreciate that explanation. Thank you so much for that and just don't go anywhere. One more quick question. Just wanted to also clarify, a number of the speakers had said I had felt very strongly that they did not want this to be an apartment building. It is going to be a hotel. Is that correct? That is correct. Is going to be a hotel, not an apartment building. Okay. And historically, up until the time when the current owners offered it to the city to use as temporary temporary housing for residents who were at risk to COVID.
Speaker 0: Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Or just temporary housing in general? I may have to defer to the owner on that question in that it is my understanding that there are no city vouchers currently being deployed at the motel. Oh, great. Okay. That clarifies that for me then. Is that correct? Do you want to do you want to come up and respond to that?
Speaker 0: Please introduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you. Brian Tauber, the owner, representative, owner of the property. I believe I heard the question was, was the motel offered as temporary housing during the pandemic? The answer is yes. I did reach out to at the time it was marketed by Denver to say we need some housing help here. I reached out to I think it was Nestor hosted and offered the apartment because we had plenty of rooms available. We interchanged with a couple of emails and they declined respectfully that it just didn't check enough of their boxes.
Speaker 3: Okay. Got it. Thank you. Really appreciate that clarification. So what happens if we agree and vote to create this urban renewal area? We agree to allow the financing and the project fails. What? What happens? I hope it doesn't, for your sake. But what then? This may need to be a tag team answer and I will give the Urban Renewal Authority answer and then Brian put you on the spot as far as what your your answer may be. The risk is borne by the developer. So, again, in putting together this project, he has already put a significant amount of equity into the project and is securing loans that will be serviced in part through the performance of the project just from normal cash flow as well as then by the amount of incremental taxes that the project generates. If those if the amount of tip is not that that was expected to be generated, isn't there. There just needs to be additional resources brought forward by the developer to continue to to repay the obligation and or take a reduction in the amount of equity returns that they would otherwise be seeking to achieve. Okay, great. I hope that doesn't happen, for your sake. If this ends up being approved. But I really want to know what is the city's risk? What are what are we looking at in terms of, you know, if we agree to this, then what comes next? So really appreciate that explanation. I think that's it for me. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilor Pro-Tem Tem. Thank you, Madam President. A lot of people asked why the city didn't purchase this. Was it offered up? Was there any interest? Was that a play at hand at all?
Speaker 7: Hmm. So that's a good question. In December of 2015, this proved this property, as well as the other property that was in bankruptcy, went to auction, public auction. I wasn't a participant at that time. We weren't in a situation to pursue it. The stalking horse bidder, they call it, would have been awarded the project. There were no competing bids to purchase it. He was the only one at that time that had even advanced an offer because there wasn't a competing bid. The trust, the judge of the court said, Well, in exchange for allowing you the 10% discount because nobody bid against you, we have to take it back out to the public market. I was at that case hearing and when that happened, I decided, well, maybe now that it's going to be re offered at a future auction that maybe at that point I would be interested to to make an offer for it. April of 2016, four months later, that auction was conducted. There were four individuals or representatives at that particular auction. One was a stalking horse bidder. One was an individual behind me. I don't know what the intent was. There was a third that declined to bid, and I was the fourth. I believe all of them were individual developer representatives that had an interest in it. I haven't met anybody that was a representative city that had any intent to buy.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you. Counsel for Tim Torres, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President So this is also a question for I have a few questions for Mr. Tauber, and I'm sorry that I'm not there in person, but hopefully we can figure this out. My being virtual and you in person. I want to read a quote from Congress Park resident Vicky Eppler. Brian Tauber. And as partners have invested considerable time and money in an effort to create a project that would fit the context of Colfax and add community benefits. This is not a luxury motel. This is not a chain hotel, but a local business. So that's the end of the quote. We certainly heard in public comment from multiple people who say that this will be a luxury motel. Help me understand if the people in public comment are right or and this letter, by the way, is in granicus. So this is this isn't it's publicly available for anyone to read it. But help me understand either why this is a luxury motel or why Miss Epler believes it is not a luxury motel, but just a local business. Somewhere the narrative got put forth that this was a luxury hotel. I'm not quite sure where that came from. It didn't come from anybody that I represent. This this hotel is designed and has been designed to be kind of a community in which it runs. It's probably going to sit somewhere squarely in a three star. It's designed to be an affordable housing or affordable accommodation. It's not something you would see down in Cherry Creek. It's independently owned, independently branded hotel and. Luxury, I guess, means different things to different people. I guess because it's cleaned up, maybe somebody thought it was luxury, but we're looking to fit within the fabric of the community and of Colfax. And I think that the business and the brand that we've designed is just that. If you're familiar with other types of boutique hotels that are small in nature, they're really they're they're just hotels that kind of speak of the local culture. And that's kind of how we designed it and branded it. So it's not a luxury hotel. It's it's really kind of just a understated place where people can kind of come enjoy time, kind of work and relax and have fun. Thank you for that. And the same in the same letter, Ms.. Mentions that she's on the board of Congress park neighbors. But she but that she is writing specifically on her own behalf, not on the board of of CBN. I know that you've given multiple presentations to Congress neighbors. Could you tell me a little bit about your the presentation and the expectations that the Board of Congress party neighbors had for you? Did they do they share that they were intending to take a position or were they inviting you to present so that TBN attendees could be better informed or, you know, help me understand what KPMG's expectations of you were and your expectations as a result of your presentation. So my recollection is two conversations. The first conversation was just with the board members. I gave them a personal tour. Vicki was part of that personal tour. I remember there are five or six individuals. I remember they were all board members and I toured the property with them and explained what what we were doing and it was support. It was that we like it. The reason why it wasn't in front of the neighborhood is because we didn't have a meeting that I could fit on their agenda back then. And we were getting ready back in 2000. And I don't know if the year was 2019 or or 2020, but we were getting ready to move forward. That and then the pandemic hit and everything just kind of shut down. We then with Jeff, with with Darragh and myself formally were met with a Congress Park neighborhood association where the neighbors are. And they had. Support of our project. I mean, it wasn't 100% support. Nothing ever really is. But I we left that meeting and I think we felt very confident that we had support. So that was with regard to Congress part or the. Yeah. And I guess the determent question is, I don't recall Congress neighbors taking official positions on on a lot of rezonings or in this case I do a presentation. And so, um, but I, but I figured I would ask you specifically what your, what your conversations were in case, you know, CPN had mentioned that it did intend to take a position as a result of the.
Speaker 8: Conversation.
Speaker 7: With you. An official position on it. If they. So explain in our plans and we took a question in Parliament. So I have one other kind of thought process I'm going to go down. Tell me about the pool you intend to build there. Who gets to visit the pool? And what are your community goals for the pool? Yeah. Great question. We we are trying to model. A successful offering that new Waterloo has had in some of their other hotels, and Austin, where they have pools that are available for the community for day pass. So we felt that this was an opportunity to activate that ground level. We couldn't put the pool up top for cost concerns, but we wanted to activate it. So we thought that it would be a nice benefit for those that would like to take an afternoon and sit around the pool and relax, that this would be a offering, an amenity and for the community that they could indeed come and use the pool in addition to the hotel guests via daily passes. It's been done in new water, lose other hotels successfully, South Park as well as El Rey. I know for sure and I'm sure they've got others that they do it at. So we're we're pretty excited about that. I think that there's there are some community pools that I'm aware of, but I think this pool will just be more of an activated opportunity to to come and just relax and hang out and have fun . Yeah. Thank you for that. The last question that I have is very similar. I think you mentioned it in your in your testimony. You talked about the community space. But like for you to go into little more detail about the there's a community space that you intend to build there. And what are your goals for that community space? Are who do you intend to offer it to, etc.? So through our discussions with community planning and development and Denver Urban Renewal, we felt it very important to offer additional community benefits in addition to the preservation of historic structure. This was important for community planning and development, and we hadn't had space allocated within the ground level that we could offer. But during those conversations, I identified an area that was actually going to be the laundry facility for the hotel and said perhaps this particular space will reimagine, we'll get rid of it or remove it. We'll do it off site or we'll move it to the basement. So community planning development actually really appreciated the negotiation between that and it was understood if you do this, this needs to be a commercially affordable space. So I sat down actually a Bluebird bid and some other stakeholders and I said, What would be something that's missing ? People in the arts were brought up that this would be great for those people that are part of the arts group. There were a couple specific art. Art related businesses or non-profits that that that I actually reached out to and and tried to dialog what would work within a hotel that would be a benefit to both. That would be a use that would make sense but would really be something that a small business or somebody that was looking at displacement of their business could come in and take as a tenant and we would offer that to them as a for.
Speaker 1: An affordable commercial space.
Speaker 7: So we have about 695 square feet on that ground level. We re-engineered some access and access to that space. We sent our architect back to the drawing board to redesign it, and we went back into planning with the city to get that relooked at and permitted. So we felt really good about it. We know there's a lot of companies that are at risk of displacement. We're just hoping to do a small part. Q For your for your answers and thank you. Council President. No further questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions probably for both of you. Tracy, I'll start with you. I know you answered a lot of questions about what tax increment financing is for. Councilman Sawyer, I just wanted to clarify for some of the people who spoke. Several people stated that we were somehow taking money away from from the city or taking money away from our ability to help people. We're taking money away from housing. So can you maybe clarify that so people understand again that this this is the incremental benefit and we're not actually taking our city tax dollars.
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 3: Sure. I am happy to do that. When an urban renewal plan is approved, that includes tax increment financing. The state law requires that there be a calculation of the amount of taxes that the project is currently generating, both on sales tax as well as property tax referred to very simply as the base amount of taxes. That amount is always first collected and then paid to the city or DPS or urban drainage. So in doing a project, it isn't taking anything away from the city or the other taxing entities from what they already were receiving. It's only the amounts above that base that become the increment that are available to the Urban Renewal Authority to invest in the project.
Speaker 4: And that that will also expire. It doesn't go on indefinitely. Correct.
Speaker 3: And the term of that would be the earlier of repayment of the amount that we commit to reimburse the developer or 25 years, whichever comes first.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: And I know I think it was last year we had a number of them expire.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 4: Some big ones. Okay. I had a question about the planning board vote. And so only five members were present out of 11.
Speaker 2: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 4: And four were in support and one was not. But they needed five votes because that would have been quorum.
Speaker 3: Yes, they as I am reading their their bylaws and I'm going to look for others who may have to to weigh in here, that the the requirement for approval of any item come before them is either a majority of those present or five. And so since they there were only five present, the majority clearly was met, but they needed to get that baseline of five, which is the majority of the total count of the board. Okay. So do that. Right, Andrew.
Speaker 4: So it's not the planning board voted it down. It's just literally there weren't enough people there.
Speaker 3: Correct, that the outcome was such that they could not make a recommendation.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then I have a few other questions and I'm just trying to better understand, um, what a lot of our speakers talked about, that we were taking housing away from people. So I just wanted to better understand what that housing is. And I know in our your presentation of finance and government, we talked you talked about the rent that people were paying and the number of days who were there. So I don't know if you want to answer that or Mr. Tauber, but, um, how many rooms are there.
Speaker 2: At the.
Speaker 4: Motel?
Speaker 7: There are 54.
Speaker 4: Okay. And how many people are living there now.
Speaker 7: As of today or on an average today? I believe there are somewhere between five and seven. Michelle. Ma'am, the actual number, she's here tonight.
Speaker 4: Okay. And and before you stop accepting new people in March, what was the typical occupancy?
Speaker 7: So typically there was, according to my tenant that has been managing it for 19 years around mid twenties and that's what we were expecting about 24 people because we had asked for a rent rule several months before and that was also on the record. In March there were 37, so there was a surprise increase over what we were expecting. Which wasn't consistent with the history of it. But for I would assume I believe that there was another site that closed down voluntarily and they moved in here temporarily.
Speaker 4: So you weren't normally full. You didn't have those rooms, right? Correct. Okay. And I saw a chart somewhere about how much people were paying. And it was would tell me how much how like a monthly. Yeah. Because a lot of people were saying there long term. Correct. Are they paying?
Speaker 7: I believe. And another great question for the show. I believe that the individuals were paying the motel tenant an average of 350 or $380 a week. We don't collect any rent. A couple of things that I'll share. When we purchased it, we kept my rent to the operating company the same that was negotiated by the bankruptcy estate . And I haven't raised it in six years because I thought raising it would only put more burden on their business that would eventually potentially lead to their closing of their business. It was important for me to say, we won't raise your in six years and you're well below market rent to me. Now their business was their business and they worked with Mental Health Center in Denver and others to collect. Reps for the people that were being placed there. Now, from what I understand, even the rents they were collecting were below market. And I think that comes from Michele. I think maybe you can add some color around that.
Speaker 2: Sure. Good evening, City Council members Michelle Coffey, relocation coordinator for the Island Motel. To answer your first question, Councilmember Black. There are eight occupants remaining onsite as of, I would say, 5 p.m. today. So. And I believe one of those is an onsite employee. That works for the Island Motel. On average, the occupants are paying anywhere from $330 to $380 per week. And those are cold. Those rents are calculated and collected on a weekly basis. I can't recall the last question, if you don't mind repeating that.
Speaker 4: I have more questions. So, um. Do the rooms have kitchens?
Speaker 2: They do not.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the rent is maybe around 1400 dollars a month.
Speaker 2: Ranging anywhere from 13, 2013, 20 per month, 1400.
Speaker 4: Okay. And just for some context. So let's just say it's 1300 dollars a month that I just Google the average rent in Denver and it is about 1700 and that's average and those include kitchens. So I would not say that the Orland Motel is a bargain and there's probably, you know, some better places for people that people could live. So I'm just trying to put this in context. And you're telling me that typically there's only around 25 rooms that are occupied. But I did have another question for you. So that the the people who you've been helping. So thank you for doing that. They it's my understanding that they are being held or they're declining your assistance. Is that the case or are there some other situations?
Speaker 2: So, no, we have not received any declines of our assistance. It's been welcomed the assistance that we've provided. We've also been since March 21st when we issued our general information notices to the occupants. We've maintained on site hours and sweet to I'm sorry room to 15 months with 250 room tip to 15 Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. until 5:00 pm. And then that effective the first week of June as the occupancy started to decline, we were we've been there maybe 2.
Speaker 1: To 3 weeks.
Speaker 2: 2 to 3 days out of the week. So we've made our presence known with the occupants that are there on site, as well as working alongside of the management team that works for the motel.
Speaker 4: Okay. And the eight that you have left, are you competent? Yeah.
Speaker 2: I would say of the eight we have left, we have four that have applications that are pending and then probably four that we're still trying to complete some sort of assessment to determine their financial I'm sorry, their financial means as well as housing criterias that need to be resolved. So. And we'll continue on site there.
Speaker 1: And how.
Speaker 2: We've met with everyone in an attempt to relocate them all successfully.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. Mr. Tauber, I have a question for you. If this does not pass tonight, what what would you do with the property? Would you continue using it as it is being used today?
Speaker 7: No, the motel's closing. It's just the deferred maintenance. We've just kind of tried to keep it together for as long as we can. We invested in a new elevator so that it wouldn't have to close. We adhered to all the public health criteria for demand to cure and and to fix just so we could keep it open and keep it used as housing. But the motel operator just can't make any money anymore. So they asked to move on and they're managing a site down the street for us as well. So that's where they want to move to and focus on that. And this project just became too expensive for them to keep it going. So if this didn't pass, we would have a boarded up, closed building that we would literally have to go back to the drawing board and figure out what now what?
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Turban. Just so I'd be sure I understand the. The plan is to renovate the existing building and build the second that's on the side. So what if 57 did you say in the new. In the.
Speaker 7: Old building? 54 in the old building. 27 in the new.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: Now, the current situation, you're renting it simply to individuals or are there agreements with the agencies that these individuals are being referred by? How does your. How would you like to phone a friend?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Can I call a friend? She has more information on the conversation.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Again. Michele copy relocation coordinators.
Speaker 1: So the rooms.
Speaker 2: Are there were they were being rented to individuals that.
Speaker 1: Were.
Speaker 2: Some were employed some receiving some government assistance like Social Security benefits. And the only agency that was receiving or placing occupants at the island motel was the mental health center of Denver. And they were paying with. Something that we refer to as a voucher, but it was a weekly payment slip that they had an arrangement with the management.
Speaker 1: In place.
Speaker 2: At the Island Hotel.
Speaker 6: And so what percentage of your people would you say came through? And they said we.
Speaker 2: Had a total of five occupants from MH.
Speaker 1: As of March.
Speaker 2: 21st.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 6: And to thank you, Michelle, Mr. Tauber, again. So, Jim, sounds it sounds like the building is not in great shape, though, and so have you. You own it six years.
Speaker 1: Is that what I remember? Six years. Okay.
Speaker 6: Give me an idea of how much money you've put in. I mean, have you made any attempts to repair?
Speaker 7: Yeah. So I personally invested $75,000 on new elevator. The Kims. Their lease agreement is a triple net lease, so they're responsible for 100% of the maintenance and pure triple net. When in 2019, we had a visit from the fire department, the public health department. I immediately went to them and said, You have an obligation to correct these items. So they invested their own dollars. I was informed that they invested over $100,000 to do all that, but I didn't I didn't check any of their invoices. So they did all the maintenance required by the various agencies that wanted things corrected at their expense. So collectively, I am assuming my 75 plus whatever they've invested just to keep it open somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of dough.
Speaker 6: Really for that type of property. I mean, if you want to write me a check for 175, I'll take it. But in the scope of what it sounds like, it doesn't sound like a huge effort was made to bring things up to a higher standard.
Speaker 7: I think from our perspective, we knew that. We only have a finite amount of money and we wanted to. After talking with an, he would deliver on the promise that they had always wanted, which was a renovation of a hotel. Any dollars that would go towards fixing rooms or so many systems that would have to be redone, all the electricity would have to be rewired and the plumbing, they became apparent that it wouldn't be a good use of dollars to try to do all that work when the intent really is to reposition it as something that's more of a contributing business to the community. So although we missed a lot, it would take a significant amount of money to bring that up to a level that I would feel comfortable anybody using as permanent housing.
Speaker 6: But you did you or the lessee met requirements presented by the city?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. 100%.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. That's all I've got. Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Think you. Ryan, can you help.
Speaker 3: Me clarify a couple of things?
Speaker 2: First of all, what was and is Sage Hospitality's involvement in this project?
Speaker 7: I have an involvement. They were introduced to me when I purchased it within about a week or two of my purchase to discuss their feeling about a hotel renovation here and whether or not it was a viable project to do such because they're a large hospitality management company in Denver. So I sat down with their executives and discussed it, and they do have a relationship and know national groups very well. And it was indicated to me that National Jewish would keep it full, that there was a need for that. So their interest and their involvement was a brief two or three conversations. But at the end of the day, they elected not to pursue any additional conversation with me, to have them manage a future hotel because it didn't check enough of their strategic boxes.
Speaker 2: And help me understand, you've said a couple of times that the hotel was.
Speaker 3: The community's idea after visioning processes, but this conversation happened two weeks after your purchase.
Speaker 2: If not.
Speaker 3: Within a shorter period of time after your purchase. And you and I had a conversation when I first got in.
Speaker 2: Office about where this idea came from. Can you clarify where this hotel idea came from?
Speaker 7: The way I understand it, before I owned it, the previous owner had discussed with the community his intent to renovate this into a hotel, and that plan didn't move forward. So when I came on board, those discussions had already occurred. I sat down with a former councilman and he indicated to me that the community was desired it, that it would be a good benefit and they would love it and it would be a benefit for National Jewish as well. So I kind of was informed at that time that was the first I had ever heard that a hotel development was kind of of previous conversation with those people that were involved in it. I didn't have any hotel experience. It wasn't what I had planned to do here. I wasn't comfortable with a hotel. But as a commitment to to him and the city, I felt obligated to investigate it and have conversations and see if it was viable. And it sent me down a three year rabbit hole of a lot of self-reflect and risk and conversation. And that's when the community engagement really started in earnest on my behalf because I was a multifamily and multifamily developer. So that was my intent. I was not not not that.
Speaker 3: But it sounds like the risk has been primarily absorbed by the Kim family. Correct?
Speaker 7: Well, the risk of operating would be borne by the Kims with regard to liability risk of the hotel, as is the risk of the asset in the event that they can't maintain their business would certainly be borne by me because then I would be in a situation, I would have a vacant building and, you know, trying to figure out what next. So, yeah, we share different risk.
Speaker 2: You get the.
Speaker 3: Funding.
Speaker 2: And the project doesn't meet your needs as far as what.
Speaker 3: It needs to generate in profit.
Speaker 2: What is the potential that you will sell.
Speaker 3: To Sage hospitality?
Speaker 7: I don't have any relationship with Sage. I would say the potential would be zero. If I were to sell it. It would be something that I would want to sell it to a partner. New Honolulu. I don't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't be working with Sage. I don't have a relationship with Sage.
Speaker 2: And what is the likelihood that if the boutique hotel. Traditional format.
Speaker 3: Doesn't work, that you would turn it into.
Speaker 2: An extended.
Speaker 3: Stay.
Speaker 2: Hotel. We're seeing those pop up. Sage Hotel.
Speaker 3: Sage has one of them in my district that originally started out as a boutique hotel and then turned to extended stay. What's the potential or likelihood that that would happen in this project? And does any of the agreement for TIFF funding.
Speaker 2: Prohibit.
Speaker 3: It from happening?
Speaker 7: Can't speak to the turf, but I can speak to the what if scenario if our plan doesn't work. In a situation where that were to happen, we'd be we'd be probably talking about a default situation with the lender. And that default would the lender would tear the default by foreclosure. And I would assume they would take the asset and auction it to the highest bidder and they would move in at pennies on the dollar and probably keep the same plan in place. That would be what I would assume would happen.
Speaker 2: And so when we were.
Speaker 3: Asking for clarity earlier.
Speaker 2: About luxury hotel versus.
Speaker 3: Market hotel market rate, I didn't hear prices.
Speaker 2: And sizes of rooms. Can you kind of give us an idea of how big the.
Speaker 3: Rooms are going to be and what you're going to be charging.
Speaker 2: For? Nightly stays at this hotel.
Speaker 7: What, 54 of the rooms or 265 square feet and 27 or 335 square feet. Those are the ones in the new building. Those are all double queens and the existing building, those are all single kings, was in the neighborhood of 265 square feet. The appraisal of 80 are expectation, which stands for average daily rate came in at about $181 a night on average.
Speaker 2: And what was the current.
Speaker 3: Average daily rate?
Speaker 7: So the average daily rate as a hospitality term for the average that somebody would pay throughout a year, some nights it might be higher than 181, some nights that might be lower than 181. It's seasonal. And the average for the first year of operations and this appraisal that we had conducted was $181.
Speaker 2: No, I'm actually asking for the current hotel. Motel? What is the current.
Speaker 3: Average daily rate?
Speaker 7: That I do not know, since I do not manage it. But I will ask Michelle and see if she has that information.
Speaker 2: So based on our assessments with the occupants, they were not paying a daily rate. Rather, they were paying a weekly rate. And those weekly rates range from $320 per week to $400.
Speaker 1: $400 per week.
Speaker 2: So that would be about $45, $46 a night.
Speaker 3: Versus $181 a night. Okay. That's it for my questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-589. Council members say the Baucus.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: We've heard a really divided set of community members almost evenly split down the middle on this project. And we've heard everything from assumptions that people living in poverty get some kind of deal when they're in hotels, when in fact.
Speaker 2: It is often the most impoverished people who end up paying a premium on things that we.
Speaker 3: Take for granted because it is cheaper to be in a hotel.
Speaker 2: Or a motel when you are unable to meet all of the requirements for a lease, when you are unable to show proof of employment. All of those things that typically are required when you engage in a lease are not required in these weekly, monthly.
Speaker 3: Daily situations of.
Speaker 2: Motels and hotels. We've heard confusion about what.
Speaker 3: Financing is or is.
Speaker 2: Not, whether there's a loss in the future or a loss currently. But what I think this all boils down.
Speaker 3: To is that. When we.
Speaker 2: Allow someone to use a. Public financing tool. There should be significant public gain. A pool with a daily pass for some people, 600 square feet or so of a.
Speaker 3: Community space without a current.
Speaker 2: Rate on what that space will cost or who will be in it. A rate jump from approximately $45 a.
Speaker 3: Night to $181 a night. It doesn't sound like there's a substantial community benefit at a time like the one we're experiencing.
Speaker 2: This is about a public financing mechanism being used for private profit. Yes.
Speaker 3: Public private partnerships are always very.
Speaker 2: Useful when we're trying to do things like create affordable housing. This is not one of those instances. This is an instance where someone bought a piece of land. Significantly discounted. They did not invest very much. They passed on the burden of ownership to a small.
Speaker 3: Business operator who we should be.
Speaker 2: Thinking, who did commendable work.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 2: House the most vulnerable among us while keeping their business alive.
Speaker 3: And investing in someone.
Speaker 2: Else's asset. Yet they get nothing from this situation. Those are the people who we should have been figuring out how to create a TIFF financing scheme for.
Speaker 3: But that's not the case here.
Speaker 2: And we will be creating a public financing mechanism to benefit someone. Personally their bottom.
Speaker 3: Line, not our community. It would be great to have a pool. It would be great.
Speaker 2: To have.
Speaker 3: A boutique hotel in the neighborhood. But not.
Speaker 2: On the taxpayer dime, whether it's current taxpayer dollars or future forgone taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 3: So tonight I will be a no on this. I don't think it's ready.
Speaker 2: I think there are still residents who are not housed. We talked about this in committee, and I hope that my colleagues who are concerned about those residents getting housed.
Speaker 3: Stick to their guns and their commitment from committee. So I will be a no on this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate, Councilwoman say, the Baucus comments just now and those of our speakers. And I do understand the need for motels. I know that for a lot of our most at risk and residents who have the greatest needs, it's very difficult to lease a traditional apartment. And so I do understand that and I know we've lost a lot of those properties in our city and along Colfax. I also understand the people who live in the area and and why they would like to see some improvement in the area. I do think it's interesting that how much people pay to live in motels and. We all know that they're they're not they're not usually places where a lot of us would want to live, and they're paying quite a lot of money. There are apartments in Denver. There's a lot in my district that cost a lot less than the Allen Motel. And there's coffee you probably know about some of them in far southeast Denver. And so hopefully you can get every single one of those people into a better living situation where they have a kitchen also. Uh, so of course that is a goal of everyone here. We all want that to happen. This is an interesting example of the city trying to balance multiple goals, housing the desires of a neighborhood, neighborhood safety, community building, addressing blight. But one thing we haven't talked about is the fact that they're preserving an existing building. And so on different nights you might sit here until 11:00 at night and we're talking about preserving buildings, either designate them as a landmark or reusing buildings in another way. And it's something that we all think is very, very important not to tear a building down, because in a lot of instances in Denver, buildings have been torn down. And there's some regret for our community because we've torn down buildings we wish we hadn't torn down. So I appreciate the fact that you're going to reuse the existing building. It's good for our environment, it's bad for our climate to tear down a building and send it to the landfill. So I think that's something that's very different about this project that we than we usually see. Adaptive reuse is challenging and expensive, and I consider this as sort of an incentive, as an incentive to reuse the building. I know in a lot of cases it's cheaper for a developer just to tear down and build, you know, a massive apartment building. I know we've seen that all over the city, including in my district. So I just wanted to bring up that added benefit that I think is very important is the fact that the building would be reused. That's all I have things.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Black. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 7: EU Council President. As many of you know, I lived at 92 Logan in the Uptown neighborhood for 13 years. I would regularly go to City Park or through the City Park neighborhoods and along Colfax as I walk my dog between Uptown and City Park. So I visited this motel and would go by it a lot and also went to the Associated Rock Bar years ago when the bar was still open. It was interesting even back then. Still, it's it's great to see this motel up for consideration today, considering I visited this specific location many times and in previous years before I even considered serving in public office. It really helps me to give get some additional context with which to consider the future of 3015 East Colfax. I do want to point out that this is in District nine. However, as of July 2023, when redistricting is complete, this plot will be located in District ten. I think it's also relevant or interesting to note that the District nine sponsored map Map A, even though it wasn't adopted, would also have placed this location into District ten. So I want to thank the neighbors and multiple Arnaud's for their support for this project, including South City Park neighbors, Capitol Hill, United Neighbors and multiple board members at Congress Park Neighbors. As I mentioned in the questions, often Congress park neighbors doesn't take positions. So I think that's part of the reason why Miss Eppler was was specific about how she did not. Her letter was not meant to be representative of KPN, but more on her personal behalf. And I also want to recognize and celebrate the letter of support from.
Speaker 8: Historic Denver, too.
Speaker 7: So some constituents have reached out reached out to expressed concern about why this would be a hotel and not affordable housing. After all, that was the original plan for this location. As Mr. Tauber had mentioned, and it was because of the District nine councilmember at the time that this project's focus changed from apartments to hotel rooms. With that new direction, the owner moved forward with hotel rooms. We're in an affordable housing crisis in our mile high income city, that is for sure. The vast majority of new projects in District ten are apartments in Golden Triangle. 14 of the 15 projects currently on the CPD radar are apartments in Cherry Creek. There's a similar picture of the 11 developments currently on the radar in Cherry Creek. In many ways, this is definitely in line with the priorities we've heard about and Guidance Council has given to developers. As in more apartments, please. We need them because because of the housing crisis. But even though we have a housing crisis, it doesn't mean we must devote all resources to housing. It's okay that this project intends to add hotel rooms, particularly because of my next point. This project intends to add multiple amenities designed for the community. Known as the third place. City Park West is in need of a third place where neighbors can meet one another in a public space. I want to thank Mr. Tauber and the project's sponsors for listening to community and prioritizing meeting spaces for the community in their project . This hotel is close to National Jewish, as has been mentioned. And in case people don't already know, perfect ten because it's in my district. And Denver's own national Jewish is the nation's leading respiratory hospital. People come from all over the U.S. for appointments at National Jewish, and loved ones deserve a nearby place to stay when they've come from other states or even countries. I think it's great that our public oversight that will release public tax dollars will create public gathering places on this project. Put another way, we are putting money from the people to work to create community gathering spaces for the people. There are comments showing concerns about the success or lack thereof for boutique hotels or potentially for this hotel. I just mentioned that council shouldn't vote based on opinion of the business plans viability. That's not our business. That is totally fair in this case, Mr. Torbay's success or lack thereof. And and and it's not really up to us to weigh in on whether we think that business model will be successful. But I would just mention that there is another boutique hotel on 11th on Capitol Hill that has had strong success, or at least success, as we would expect given the pandemic of the last couple of years . Finally, considering our long conversation about waste in our city, I am excited to hear and happy to hear that the developers have chosen to rehabilitate the existing structure instead of dumping it all into our landfill. It will help our planet well. And it will also help us remember the hotel from its heyday back in the 1950s and sixties and even 1970s. So I intend to vote for this and I hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Hines, councilmember each.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President I've listened carefully to the presentation tonight and to the testimony. I want to thank Tracy Huggins, in part, who reached out very early when this project was being contemplated to ask what is the best standards that could be used? And I sent the recommendation of using be connected someone who's not a professional relocation assistance provider in the realm of urban renewal, but is in the business of placing people who are deeply low income and contingent housing into safer and more stable housing. And so I can't find flaws with the process that was used here to assist these residents with the stability that they might be gaining. I can't find supply with residents who may be on the move and less interested in the services that are being offered. And I can't find flaw necessarily with the project. I think I understand why the neighborhoods nearby have supported it. I think it's a worthy project in terms of trying to provide a hotel in a neighborhood that can use something of this scale, whether it's for medical visits or entertainment visits. All of that is no criticism and lots of good reasons to for my colleagues who will be supporting it. I have a long and nuanced history with the tool of tax increment financing. When before I was a council member, I was a watchdog of this tool, and I believe that it is neither good nor bad on its own. It's about how it's used, and I have really high standards. I believe that our public financing is rare. It's a privilege. It's not something that every project that's struggling to make ends meet can get. And even though each project is evaluated individually, it's not an infinite tool. There would be a limit to how many projects our finance department would be comfortable with in terms of the tax revenue that goes off the books rather than coming in when that project is completed. It would have limits in terms of the.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 3: Board's willingness to adopt those projects. And so when a tool is rare and it's a privilege, it has to be used on the highest and most important uses. And and there are uses that I don't think it's appropriate for. And so in this case, in spite of feeling that this team has done everything it can for vulnerable residents, I think about this project like I do some of the early urban renewal, which was single room occupancy housing, and that was raised in Mass in places like LoDo and replaced with other types of uses that certainly are nice and lovely. But that to me is just not the legacy of what public financing tools should be focused on. And so in spite of the fact that there was a good process here and that this is substandard housing, I don't romanticize it. Keeping it would not serve those residents necessarily in terms of their long term stability, certainly not their financial stability. In spite of all of those reasons, I just don't think this is an appropriate use of our public taxpayer dollars, particularly at this time. So I can't support the project tonight. I'll be a no, but I respect those who evaluated things differently, and I hope that we can continue to prioritize the use of tests and projects that are delivering the types of housing and the types of long term sustainable housing that our city needs when we're vetting projects. So that would be a higher priority for me than this type of project. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Kinney. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to express why I'm going to be voting yes for this tonight. Dora has historically been a tool used for lots of different kinds of projects. If you all remember, we voted on Costco, which previously was assigned for a Lowe's project. And then I think you got reassigned, if I remember that correctly. I can remember the Broadway marketplace was done with TIFF, and at that time that didn't include housing. That was, you know, to bring some commercial to that area of the city that didn't that was desperately needed. It did displace some residents, but they were relocated. The Dora funds were used for that purpose, as they have been for many, many projects. The 38th the Denver Post site near the 41st and Fox project included tax increment financing. That's a mixed use project that will include some housing. I could go on and on. The Stapleton had $300 million in tax increment financing, and that did include some affordable housing that was negotiated with the developer to ensure that we were working to include low income residents in that development. So the tool and you all know about downtown and how much that was used throughout our downtown for various projects. So I wouldn't say that it solely has to be used for residential projects. Historically, it's been a mixed bag and I think this is an appropriate use. I appreciate that each of the tenants who have been in that building were being relocated. And again, that's part of the use or has been can be reimbursed. Use of the funds that allow these projects to happen. Typically tip has been used as a gap financing in in many cases the developer would not be able to do a project without the tax increment financing to help close the gap and allow the project to exist. So those are reasons why I think we have to look at each one based on the merits of the project in front of us and not always try to compare one to another, because the geography and some of the issues with the site are all very different from one another. And this one has its own circumstances that I believe justify the need for us moving this forward. So I will be a yes vote today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And I do appreciate all of the public speakers who shared their perspective tonight as well. And based on the merits of the project and the current state of the property, I am in favor of this tonight and we'll be voting on it affirmatively as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash five, eight, nine.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No. Can each. No. Hines.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Clark. Eye for an.
Speaker 1: Eye. Herndon, i.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: May.
Speaker 2: Ortega.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 2: Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Closed the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Three days. Nine eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine eyes. Counselor Bill 20 2-5, eight, nine has passed. Again. Thank you to our speakers. Councilmember Black, will you please put Bill 590 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes. I move that council bill 20 20590 will be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It got us moved and seconded. Thank you. Comments by members of Council. Council Member State Abarca.
Speaker 3: You know, for this one.
Speaker 0: Okay. I don't have any other members of council in the queue. And so Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 590, please.
Speaker 5: Sorry. We have the wrong thing.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan, the creation of the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area and the 3015 East Colfax Street Property Tax Increment Area and Sales Tax Increment Area.
Approves the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan and authorizes the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-24-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0557
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen? Councilmember Ortega, what would you like us to do with Council Resolutions 557 and 558 this evening?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I want to invoke our Rule 3.7 that allows a member of council to hold those bills. I was not here when the issue came to committee, and I had a brief conversation with Brady Fisher this afternoon and received some information that I want to be able to digest and make sure that I've asked all the questions. A lot of them are related to what kind of exit plan that we will have ensuring that. Number one, the city general fund won't be expected to pick up the tab after all the federal funds are gone, but also to make sure that we are doing the right job with the people who are staying in many of the motels that we have contracted for during COVID. So I am invoking that rule. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Kinney.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council president. I very much appreciate this rule as a compromise we did with the administration about going from two readings to one, reading four contracts. And it is not up for debate. But I did just want to ask before we move on, if I can just get clarity on whether or not this one week delay will have any particular impact on folks being able to stay housed? I just wanted that to be known if anyone's going to be displaced because of this one week delay. I hope that's not the case, but I know we sometimes run down to the wire on these things, so I'd just like us to know before we move on, if that's okay.
Speaker 0: Sure, that sounds good. And we've got birds coming up here, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself. Thank you. Hi, I'm Britta Fisher, the chief housing officer for the city of Denver. And it'll be cutting it close.
Speaker 2: To our contract date.
Speaker 0: But we've had a good relationship with the hotel, and I believe that we'll be.
Speaker 2: Fine in keeping people safely sheltered. Got it. I don't want to rehash our entire debate at committee. I would encourage anyone who was not able to observe it to maybe check back in. But one of the things that we discussed is the fact that the COVID emergency is still very much active, the number of city employees, one of whom will be presenting to us tomorrow remotely because she has covered it, is staggering the number of people around us. I believe I think last time I looked, the positivity was at 11%. I didn't look today, but hospitalizations have been up by several hundred percent. It was it was it was definitely going in the wrong direction. And so the urgency of continuing to protect really medically vulnerable residents, mostly elderly, but also people with oxygen mobility, disabilities, just a lot of vulnerability remains a challenge for our city. And I just want to say how important I think this contract is for that. Obviously, we're not voting tonight, but just because it is so front and center right now that the risk continues to be there. I just wanted to put it on the record. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember each Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President, since Director Fisher is here. I am not going to ask him anything, so please feel free to said. I wanted to thank two groups. First, I want to thank you and the Department of Housing Stability and I want to thank the folks who are representing of Dona, the Upper Downtown Neighborhood Association, including the the residents of the Spire. I've had multiple meetings with, with host and and multiple meetings with OB Dona and some of those have both groups. Some of those were separate. But but I really want to I want to thank the donor members for their collaboration and their willingness to have a reasoned dialog. I also want to thank housing stability for for helping with some of that subject matter expertize. And because I don't I don't know everything. It is very complicated topic and and so thank you housing stability for providing that subject matter expertize and helping us on council. Also our residents both who are in the aloft and those who are adjacent to. You'll have to understand some of the complexities that that this contract considers. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And for the viewing public. When the council member invokes our council rule. 3.7, no motion is required. And so Council Resolutions five, five, seven and five, five, eight have been postponed for one week. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Sixth Amendment to Emergency Occupancy Agreement between the City and County of Denver and JBK Hotels, LLC to provide temporary housing for individuals experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 health crisis.
Amends an occupancy agreement with JBK Hotels, LLC doing business as Aloft, by adding $2,447,200 for a new total of $13,267,500 and six (6) months for a new end date of 12-31-22 to provide 140 rooms to people experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 crisis, in Council District 9 (FINAN-202262777). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-27-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-24-22. Councilmember Ortega called this item out at the 6-6-22 meeting for a one-week postponement to 6-13-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0603
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And for the viewing public. When the council member invokes our council rule. 3.7, no motion is required. And so Council Resolutions five, five, seven and five, five, eight have been postponed for one week. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Council members say to Barca, Will you please put resolutions 603 and 604 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that. Resolutions 22, dash 603 and 604 be adopted in a bloc.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council Council Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thanks, Madam President. There are actually four on call contracts that are on our agenda for this evening. Two of them say that they're general services contracts, that they are dodgy contracts that will be reported on via the dodgy reporting service. So really appreciate that. Had a conversation with Audi and General Services earlier today about that. So I removed those two from this block vote. The remaining two are airport contracts on call as well. For those of you in the audience who don't listen to me every week. There are on call contracts that come through from the city agencies with no reporting or no clear reporting on how much of those contracts are used, how much of that money is used, who the subcontractors might be on those jobs. And so I regularly vote no on them. Interestingly, this time around, one of the contracts is the contract on call contract to close the oil wells at an airport, which is something that is very important to me and something that I have been talking about since before I was even elected into office. At committee, I asked why this was written as an on call contract when what was presented to us was essentially a contract to close, to plug and abandon all of the wells remaining at an airport by June of 2023. And the answer was that it just is the way they're going to do things. That's pretty concerning, not only because, again, we have this issue with follow up reporting. And I believe that the charter of City and County of Denver gives city council budget oversight power, and that doesn't just mean creation of the budget. That also means following the money and seeing how it is spent, seeing how contracts are used. I think on call contracts are very, very important and very useful in our city, but there has to be better reporting on the back end. I've got to say, this one feels a little personal and that's not okay either. So I will be a note tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I are sorry. Council President and I wasn't going to call out 603 but since it is called out, I do want to I do want to mention a couple of things. First of all, I want to thank Dan for the permanent closing of all Denver international airports, oil and gas wells. When I first took office, this was a priority for me. It was different than leadership in at the time. And that leadership said that they wanted to keep these 60 something wells in play because it could potentially be used to offset ticketing fees. While I hope that that we can keep our fees low for the airport, I don't think that we should destroy our human or our habitability on this planet to do so. I also I want to thank Director Washington. I mentioned this in committee, but I want to thank him because when I interviewed him, you know, we had the council had it now has the oversight authority over certain mayoral appointees. And when I talked to Director Washington, I said this is this is important to me. And I strongly encouraged him to close these wells. After he took office, he committed to making our airport the most environmentally friendly airport in the nation. He also committed to permanently closing dense oil and gas wells. And now, as of this contract, we get that closure. So to to use my colleague's comment, this is personal. And I want to personally thank you, Director Washington. Thank you, Madam President. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And seen no other folks in the queue. I go ahead, Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to mention that. So if you remember, we had some applications that went before the Colorado Land Board that were proposed in your district. I think this was in your first term. Early days of your first term. And the notice. For those applications for proposed oil and gas drilling went through the airport and people in the neighborhoods had not known about that. One of the things that we got very involved in that from my office as well, that one of the items that we talked about with the mayor's office was making sure that neighborhoods are notified. So if the airport is no longer going to be doing any oil and gas business on airport land, it begs the question about whether there should be a different point of contact from the state land board if there are other applications that come forward to ensure that that practice of notifying neighborhoods still continues. So I just want to highlight that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And I think we need to dig into it a little bit more. But I know that we had someone designated, I believe, at the airport and then one person within the administration as well. And I see Sky Stewart nodding her head. And so I think we had that overlap to make sure that we didn't miss any notifications. So thank you for bringing that up, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolutions 22, Dash 603 and 22, dash 604 and a block.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 3: Torres. I am black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Herndon. I paint.
Speaker 2: I can teach.
Speaker 3: Ortega, I. Sandoval, i. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results one night. An ICE and ICE resolution's 20 2-603 and 22 604 have passed. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Council members say to Barca, Would you please put bills 589 and 590 on the floor for publication?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Delsco Northwest Corp., concerning providing on-call oil and gas field closure services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Delsco Northwest, Corp. for $9,200,000 through 06-30-2023, with one optional one-year renewal, to provide on-call oil and gas field closure services at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202161284). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-27-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-25-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0589
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results one night. An ICE and ICE resolution's 20 2-603 and 22 604 have passed. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Council members say to Barca, Would you please put bills 589 and 590 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bills 22, dash five, 89 and 590. We ordered published in a block.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have a motion and a second comments by members of council. Council member Sayed Ibaka.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I've called this item out for a vote. It's early. It's first reading. There were a lot of questions in committee and since our committee meeting, I've had several community members reaching out and letting me know that they did not want me to support this. And I am honoring that request and voting no on first reading.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council members say the baka see no other members in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on council bills 22, dash five, 89 and 20 2-5 90, please.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca no.
Speaker 4: Flynn I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 3: High Kenny Ortega I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval I. Sawyer I.
Speaker 3: Torres, I.
Speaker 2: Black I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results.
Speaker 3: One May ten Eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Bells 20 2-5, 89 and 20 2-5 90 have been ordered published. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on item on our screens. Council members say to Barca, Will you please put bills for 71 and for 75 on the floor to take out of order?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan, the creation of the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area and the 3015 East Colfax Street Property Tax Increment Area and Sales Tax Increment Area.
Approves the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Plan and authorizes the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-24-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0471
|
Speaker 3: Ortega. I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 Nice Lebanese Council Bills 20 2-4, seven one and 20 2-475 may be taken out of order. Council members say to Barca, Will you please put bills 471 and 475 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bills 22, dash 471 and for 75 be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a bloc.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 1: I move that final consideration of accountability 20 20471 and 20 20475. With their public hearings be postponed to Monday, June 20th, 2022.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Not seeing any other comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Council bills 20 2-4, seven one and 22. Dash 475, please.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 1: Can you.
Speaker 7: I think that was the Kenny G. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Kenny. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I'm black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: It's 11 eyes. Actually, 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. 11 eyes. Final consideration of council bills. 22, dash four, seven one and 22. Dash 475 with their public hearings will be postponed to Monday, June 20th. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member State Barca. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 20 2-5 46 547 559 five 6561 562 563 581 587 588 602 528 567 610 611 612 614 615 616 five 3565 599 600 6016096 5485 545 553 568 580 460668 651 519 527 526. 532. 533. 443. 515. And that is a long list.
Speaker 0: Yes, we got them all. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye CdeBaca. Eye for an.
Speaker 1: Eye. Herndon High.
Speaker 3: Haynes Cashman. Sorry, can high Ortega. I send them off.
Speaker 2: I swear. Torres, I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes in the eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement this evening. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on council bill 22, dash 412 changing the zoning classification for 4401 South , a back street in Hamden South, and a combined public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash four two for amending the Denver Zoning Code. Council Bill 22, Dash 426 amending Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning housing.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2070 S. Franklin Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0412
|
Speaker 0: When called upon, please wait until our meeting hosts. Promote you to speaker when you are promoted. Your screen will ask permission to allow us to promote you. Please accept the promotion. When you accept the promotion. Your screen will flash and say, Reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. You will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only say your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We'll alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member State Abarca Will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash for 12 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bill 22 Dashboard 12 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22. Dashboard 12 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: And I am virtual. Hi. Hi. All right. See? Can you all see that and hear me? Okay, great. So my name is Libby Adams. I'm with Community Planning.
Speaker 9: And Development, and I'll be presenting the MAP Amendment four 4401 South Quebec Street. This application is located in Council District four in the Hamden South neighborhood.
Speaker 2: The property is located along South Quebec Street, north of I to 25. It's just over an acre and is currently occupied by an office building that is primarily used for mental health counseling services. And the purpose of the rezoning is to expand the permitted uses to allow for short term overnight stays. And the applicant is proposing to rezone from pod 206 to Smic's five. The existing zoning is 206. This is a district within the former Chapter 59 zoning code that allows for office and retail uses. It has a maximum floor area ratio of 1 to 1 and a maximum building coverage of 35%. The site is currently used for office uses.
Speaker 9: The surrounding area is mostly multi-unit.
Speaker 2: With commercial and retail self-storage directly to the south. This slide shows the existing building performance scale with the subject property on the bottom right hand side. This map amendment was complete at the end of December. A postcard notifying property owners within 200.
Speaker 9: Feet of the site was.
Speaker 2: Sent out on December 22nd and then planning board unanimously recommended approve approval of the rezoning on April six. And to date, no public comment letters have been received. There are five review criteria for rezoning in the Denver zoning code that must be met.
Speaker 9: The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans.
Speaker 2: And there are two plans that are applicable to this rezoning. Information on how the application meets the strategies and the comprehensive plan can be found in the staff report and some moving to blueprint. Denver.
Speaker 9: The Blueprint. Denver identifies the future neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Context of suburban. These areas have irregular block patterns of curvilinear streets and a range of uses. And then the future place type and blueprint. Denver is high, medium residential. These place types provide a mix of medium scale multi-unit residential uses with heights up to five storeys. It can also accommodate compatible commercial and retail uses consistent with the six five request. In South Quebec, Street is designed as is designated as a commercial arterial street. The Blueprint Growth Area strategy is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate to see 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by 2040. And then Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations, as are the land use and built form. General Policy three recommends rezoning properties from the former Chapter 59 Zoning Code so that the.
Speaker 9: Entire city is covered by the Denver zoning code.
Speaker 2: Staff also finds the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through rezoning of property into the Denver zoning code and allowing a district with a greater density and greater mix of uses. There's also a justifying circumstance for this MAP amendment because the city adopted the Denver zoning code, and this property remains in the former Chapter 59 zoning code. And lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and the purpose of the mixed use districts and the specific intent of the six five zone district. So finding review criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning, and that concludes my presentation.
Speaker 3: Think. Ding, ding, ding.
Speaker 0: Ding, ding, ding. This evening we have two individuals signed up to speak, but both are joining us virtually. Our first speaker is Alison Hibbs.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. Can everybody hear me okay?
Speaker 9: Leah Good evening. My name is Alison.
Speaker 2: Hibbs with Plan West. I am here tonight to represent EWR Plaza in our request to rezone the property at 4040 4401 South Quebec from the outdated PUD 206 to a current.
Speaker 3: Denver zoned district.
Speaker 2: Specifically S-Max five.
Speaker 9: Plan West is a land planning and design.
Speaker 2: Firm here in Denver. Our case manager, Libby Adams, has already given you guys a very thorough presentation, so I won't take up your time tonight with too much redundancy, but I just want to let the council know that we are here available to answer any questions that you have. The proposed free zone is to benefit both the owner of EWR Plaza by expanding counseling services, which are currently permitted with the current 5206 to include short term overnight services as well as the city by bringing the outdated PUD into a current Denver's own district. Thank you for hearing our proposal tonight and we appreciate your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Jesse Perez.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. Members of Council. May I be heard? Okay. In regards to this rezoning, I'm in favor of it. It meets all five of the criteria. Um. If there is going to be some place here was am I ever going to be it is going to be commercial retail. How many employees are going to be at this location? If someone please answer the question. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dashboard 12. All right. It doesn't look like I knew I needed to wait for a second. Councilmember Flynn, please go ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Libya. Do you know, is the Raleigh House the sole occupant of the building or are there other users in there at the moment? And and are they part of this application or do they know about it?
Speaker 2: Hi. Councilmember Flynn. Can you actually repeat that question? I was being re promoted and so it took me off and then I missed the second half of your question.
Speaker 4: But halfway between being beamed up. And you're not quite there yet. Thank you. I'm just wondering, is Raleigh how's the sole tenant in this building or are there other users? And if there are other users, are they aware of this? And are they supportive of it or. Or are they impacted by this change?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that may actually be I may defer to our applicants for that question. I don't know if Alison is able to rejoin. There she is. Okay. Sorry.
Speaker 9: Technical difficulties on there.
Speaker 2: I can tell you that Raleigh House does own the building currently and is the primary tenant there. We can try to get the.
Speaker 9: Owner on as well.
Speaker 1: We believe there are the tenants that are aware of this.
Speaker 9: We believe the tenants are aware.
Speaker 0: Alison, do you know the answer to that question?
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. I believe the tenants have been notified. Is that the answer?
Speaker 6: Does that answer?
Speaker 4: Your answer was partly cut off. Are the other tenants in the building aware of this and are they impacted by the change? It's like.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 9: Yes, to the best of our knowledge, the other tenants are aware and are not.
Speaker 2: Impacted by this change.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: I see no other questions from members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 412. Councilmember Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I am supporting this resign because it meets the criteria and to address Councilman Flynn's questions. The the building is a small office building in an area where there are office buildings and public storage. And it's really not changing the use at all. They're just allowing people to sleep there at night if they need to be, which is something we desperately need in our city mental health services and a place for people to stay the night if they need to. So I'm both supportive of the rezoning and the youth, and I hope my colleagues will support this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Black. And seeing that it does meet all of the criteria, I'm happy to support it this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dashboard 12.
Speaker 3: Black. I see tobacco, I. Flynn. I turned it on hands. I can change.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I swear, i.
Speaker 3: Torres. Hi. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: You have a nice.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes council bill 22, Dash 412 has passed. We're going to move on to our second hearing of the evening. Thank you, Libby, for the staff report and those community members who testified on the previous hearing. Council member state of.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4401 South Quebec Street in Hampden South.
Approves a map amendment to rezone a property from PUD 206 to S-MX-5 (planned development to suburban, mixed-use) located at 4401 South Quebec Street in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-19-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0424
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes council bill 22, Dash 412 has passed. We're going to move on to our second hearing of the evening. Thank you, Libby, for the staff report and those community members who testified on the previous hearing. Council member state of. Please go ahead with your comments.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. It's my intent to offer two amendments tonight. One of them will be an amendment to Council Bill 22 for 25 to remove that 38th and Blake Station area incentive overlay rezoning IMX eight to IMX five and not change any of the other zoning classifications. The other one will be an amendment to Council Bill 22 for 26, which aims to treat edu builders as we're treating those adding on to their homes. The current draft of this bill exempts 80 use from paying the linkage fee, but charges anyone building more than 400 square feet. The linkage fee. Many adus being built are larger than many of the homes in neighborhoods like sponsor and are selling as a part of million dollar homes, exponentially increasing the value of these homes. We need to recognize it's much more expensive to build an avenue than it is to build on to a small home. And so we don't want to unnecessarily privilege adu builders while penalizing those who are trying to make more living space on small homes. This is about equity and treating both builders the same. And so just want to make everyone aware of these amendments so that during tonight's hearing council as well as the public may speak to them on record. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Would you please put Council Bill 22 dash for two four on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bill 22 dash for 24 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We have it moved and seconded the combined public hearing for council bills. 20 2-4, two for 22, dash four, two, five and 22. Dash 426 is open. Speakers may offer comments on any one or all three items, as well as the two intended amendments after the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each item, but first I would please have the staff report. Are we going to have a staff report this evening? All right. I look the wrong way. Very good. Good evening. My name is Laura Aldridge, the executive director of Community Planning and development.
Speaker 2: To our council.
Speaker 6: Members. Thank you for having me here tonight. And to those of you who have signed up to speak, who are watching here in chambers or from home.
Speaker 0: Thank you for being with us and being engaged in your government. I'm extremely honored and excited to be here tonight as we conclude more than a year of public discussion and consideration for Denver's proposed expanding housing affordability ordinance. We could not have done it without a strong partner in our housing stability department and strong partners in Councilwoman.
Speaker 1: Robin.
Speaker 0: Kimmich and Amanda Sandoval, both of whom have helped shape this ordinance every step of the way. As members of the advisory committee, I strongly believe that the ordinance up for consideration.
Speaker 6: Tonight is extremely well researched, well defined and will benefit Denver residents for years to come. Our city.
Speaker 7: Planners.
Speaker 0: Will discuss three items this evening, which together make up the expanding housing affordability policy. One, an amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code, which, if approved, will establish the parameters for including greater affordability in new residential developments. Two An amendment to the Denver zoning code which, if approved, will establish zoning incentives to help offset the costs of providing more housing and more affordability in Denver overall. And three. A rezoning of the area around 38th and Blake RTD Station, which.
Speaker 6: Will bring the pilot approach.
Speaker 2: Currently in effect.
Speaker 6: Here into the new citywide system. These three items have been designed to.
Speaker 0: Work.
Speaker 6: Cohesively with each other.
Speaker 0: To implement the adopted plans. Better meet Denver's housing needs and ultimately ensure that new housing, new homes are built, more affordable homes are built, too. I look forward to the progress we will make on housing with new policies like this here tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your time. And I now turn it over to Britta.
Speaker 0: Fischer with the Department of Housing Stability. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Again. Council members and to our public, I am Brenda Fisher, the chief housing officer for the city and county of Denver and the executive director of the Department of Housing Stability. And I, too, am excited and honored to be here this evening, to be at this point in the process where we can bring you a proposal for expanding housing affordability that has been.
Speaker 0: Heavily informed by the.
Speaker 2: Community, by best practice research. And our housing needs are pressing housing needs. And that is such a critical component to supporting and complementing our existing affordable strategies, as this is one of many tools that we are deploying to meet the wide range of housing needs in the city of Denver. We've set aside the first few minutes of our presentation today to talk about Denver's broader housing approach and where the Expanding Housing Affordability Project fits in to complement existing programs and meet housing needs. This policy was designed to work with and not replace our existing services, programs and investments into affordable housing and anti displacement and other new ones yet to come. Like our affordable housing prioritization policy. Expanding housing affordability is a critical piece of the puzzle, helping create more affordability for people of many income levels. And I think it recognizes affordable housing as vital community infrastructure. The expanding housing affordability policy will help us serve a broad range of incomes, as you'll see in our presentation. This policy focuses on providing affordable housing for those making 60% of the area median income or less, which is about $56,000 annually for a two person household in Denver, while serving a broader range of incomes to better meet our growing housing needs. So thank you for your support in moving this important policy forward as we work to build a healthy house and connected Denver. I will now turn the presentation over to Brad Wanek Hosts, Director of Catalytic Partnerships, and on Elise Hoke, Principal City Planner with the Community Planning and development for CBD. That Brad.
Speaker 10: Good evening, city council. Thank you, Laura and Britta, for making these remarks. I'm gonna do my best to pull up the presentation here. Everyone. Up anyway. Good evening again. My name is Brad Whiting. Staff with housing stability. I'm joined with my colleague from CPD, Annaliese Hogue, here to talk about the expanding housing affordability efforts. As Bridget, this alluded to and as you guys all well know, addressing housing needs in this city requires multiple tools and approaches. And this is really fits squarely into our kind of housing opportunity, corner of our of our long range music plan around creating more options of affordability throughout the city. It's been also mentioned, and I won't reiterate line by line, but this is designed to be very much complementary to the existing tools and programs that my department in the city has to address. The wide range of growing housing needs, ranging from homelessness all the way up to homebuyer support and everything in between. A few examples on here of some of the things that we are currently working on or launching include our goal to preserve 50 affordable homes, the privatization policy, a special revenue fund with other departments to mitigate displacement from from large city investments and infrastructure. A huge pipeline of affordable housing already underway, and also a locally funded voucher program, which we're very excited about. As Laura mentioned, the whole idea of this new policy proposal is that as new housing is built around the city, new affordable housing is created to and new development contributes of all types towards towards the solutions that we have. This can be done in a combination of two really primary policy tools. We'll be discussing a mandatory housing program, along with an update to our linkage fee policy already in place. These spending housing affordability policies again complement our existing programs and are really designed to serve a broad range of incomes. What's what's kind of unique and different and new? What we're excited about with these particular policies is the ability for us to increase the supply of of housing overall throughout the city and especially affordable housing without the use of of limited subsidy dollars, creating more and better mixed income housing opportunities throughout the city. And as far as the linkage fee goes, making sure that we maintain at current levels a critical local funding source that we use across the spectrum of need to make housing investments. Here's a simplified version of the range of incomes, individuals and households and families that are served through these programs. You'll see in kind of the dark blue lines, the linkage fee and the mandatory housing fee in lieu the dollars that are prioritized in our strategic plan for investment in the households we seek to support. You'll see a note there that our funding priority is very much at the low end of the economic spectrum, really those serving 50% and below and with a concentration or of a commitment, a prioritization for those even below 30% of BMI, our mandatory housing production tools does drive more of where we think the market can help support creation of housing, which is then that kind of 51 to 80% AMI range. But it's important to note that even those units often do and can and will reach further down the income spectrum of need when combined with tools like housing choice vouchers, including the local vouchers that my department is working to create. You already heard the overview from from more about what we're what's in front of you tonight, the three different items. So we won't belabor these points. I think it's important to remind you and I think Laura said one year in reality, it's well over two years that a version of this has been going on under way under the leadership of Aronowitz. And CPD started out as an affordable housing incentive zoning incentive research project back in 2020. And then February of last year, when we learned that the state legislature was considering a bill to enable a tool like a mandatory or inclusionary housing ordinance to be in place. We shifted tact and really kind of created the program that it is today. And kind of the three major phases that we've gone through was really spending a lot of the early time identifying and documenting and satisfying our housing needs. Taking a look at the lessons we've learned through our prior programs and researching heavily other cities around the country who have similar programs. We released that report back in February of 2021, spent the summer of last year really diving deeply into financial feasibility analysis and starting to shape the policies based on what we felt like the market could support in terms of an affordable housing requirement and or increased linkage fees. Published that policy proposal back in October and then over the winter really started to dove into the actual policymaking itself, releasing a public review of the changes to the DNC and the zoning code in February of 2020 this year, and then made one last round of revisions based on that feedback in March. And what you have in front of you today is the result and the culmination of this kind of two plus years of effort and analysis. Importantly, throughout this process, we've. We've. Made a sincere effort to ensure that there was bailout on this whole process, that we talked to a variety of organizations, individuals, constituent groups, and made sure that we were clear about what we were trying to accomplish and really did our best to listen and interpret and incorporate all of the feedback that we were able to receive from a variety of groups. We don't need to go line by line, but suffice to say that over the course of the process, we met with over 267 different organizations as well as a variety of individuals throughout this process and are very proud of, of, of that element of this process. We feel like we've we've done as good a job as we can have, really making sure that anybody that has a voice was able to share it so quickly into the proposal overview at a high level, right, that the kind of guiding principles for this project are really to balance a variety of different inputs, current and future housing needs. Again, analysis of other pure city programs, both from our state as well as throughout the country. We have a variety of other programs and incentive tools that we as a city have implemented, and we have a lot of lessons learned from those programs that we believe we've incorporated well into this process. Again, financial feasibility has been a huge component of this. We know that if we if we push too far, if we ask for too much, the market won't be able to deliver it and we won't get the outcomes that we really need to really fester among our housing spectrum. And then again, stakeholder feedback. All of this again made possible in alignment with the requirements of the State Bill that did enable this, which also requires cities to have a variety of other tools and and resources available to support the creation of housing in order to be able to pass such a policy. And so we feel like we're in great shape there. So quickly, at a high level, all new development, with a few exceptions, will contribute to creating more affordable housing on the left and the right of the slide, you'll see small residential developments of 1 to 9 units, as well as nonresidential developments. We'll continue to pay the linkage fee on a per square foot basis, albeit at a stepped up and increased rate over the next four years, which we'll get into. And then multifamily developments of ten units or more moving forward instead of paying a linkage fee, will now be expected and required to include a percentage of its units as income in rent or for sale price restricted. And also enabling some alternative compliances there in again, another requirement of the state bill and incorporating some zoning and financial incentives in there as well, because that is the outcome that we're most seeking to create as part of these policy processes. So I'll cover the linkage fee quickly and I'm going to turn it over to on a lease to cover the mandatory affordable housing program. Again, the linkage fee for those who are new is a is a fee assessed on all new developments based on the induced job demand and therefore housing demand of the uses therein and legally justified via a study that we undertook back in 2016 as a city. And we were simply through this process updating it to today's financial feasibility analysis, ensuring that the fees were charging are kind of part and parcel and appropriate for the for the ongoing need the city sees. So again, this applies to all residents developments of 1 to 9 units as well as all nonresidential uses. However, it does not apply to renovations or finishes of existing developments to small additions of four and a square feet or more to existing single and two unit homes does not apply to accessory dwelling units. It doesn't apply to areas with pre existing housing agreements such as the Green Valley Ranch, and it does not apply to restricted affordable housing developments which which we know continue to be a critical part of our strategy. And it doesn't make sense to charge fees to the very developments who are seeking to solve the issues we are seeking to solve. And finally, it does not apply to educational uses. So quickly, here's a snapshot of the proposed linkage fees based on the variety of different unit types. We don't go line by line, but I think it's important to note that these don't switch overnight should you take action in favor of supporting these policies? The first increase will be effective in July of this year, and then it'll increase in an incremental step over the next three years on a schedule until July 1 to 2025, at which point we reach kind of the what we agreed upon and analyzed to be kind of the appropriately feasible fees associated for these different developments and thereafter will increase based on inflation starting in 2026, just as it does today. So with that, I will invite on a lease up to speak for mandatory affordable housing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, members of council and also the principal city planner with community planning and development. Mandatory Affordable Housing is a new program that, as Brad said, has been enabled to us by state law. And it allows us to really ensure that as we're creating new housing in the city of Denver, new affordable housing is being built by creating mixed income housing, not just in some segments of the city, but across the city citywide, as well as a secondary priority of increasing funding citywide through the fee in lieu contributions. As a reminder, this applies to new developments creating ten or more units, and it does have exceptions of if I have an existing apartment building and I'm just putting in new countertops, it doesn't apply in those instances. State law does not allow it affordable housing projects. It does not require them to mandate, but it allows them to benefit from the incentives being provided as we're as well as areas with preexisting housing agreements or affordable housing projects. The state bill requires that we provide them one or more compliance options to building affordable units on site. The program in the policy is really designed to target housing needs where we know it's the greatest, which is at 60% AMI on the rental side and slightly higher on the ownership side. Therefore, the policy has been designed to encourage applicants to build affordable units on site more. Walk through what each of those look like. We also have the payment of value and while that fee and lose an option, it is not a desirable option from a financial perspective as it is a considerably high fee and that is calibrated by development type and market area to ensure that it is appropriately kind of leveraged on occasion. Those fee and lieu dollars will go back into the preservation and creation of affordable housing with the focus at lower incomes. We also do have ability to enter into negotiated alternatives in ways in which we can accommodate creative solutions at better and further. Our affordable housing needs in certain neighborhoods may be family friendly housing. Dedication of land for an affordable housing or supportive service. We want to allow for those creative solutions to occur, as well as in instances of large developments of either ten acres or more, or those leveraging city financial programs such as TIFF or metro districts . Those processes require a community engagement process and to kind of show how the affordable housing plan is being proven out in response to community needs. So we're going to focus a little bit, though, on the build on site requirements as this is really kind of the front of the policy and what we're aiming to achieve through it . The the program is set up in which it gives applicants two different compliance options. It also targets rentals and ownerships at slightly different income levels based off of housing needs and in our higher cost areas of the city, which include downtown and Cherry Creek. It also requires a higher contribution of affordable units in total. An important piece of this program is incentives, and incentives are really designed to promote the creation of affordable housing while increasing the overall supply of housing, overall and affordable housing. Therefore, the incentives have been structured into two different segments, the first of which are the baseline incentives, all of which are buy right. Therefore, for projects that are building the affordable units on site, which is really the outcome that we've designed and want to achieve. They have access to three incentives. The first is a permit fee reduction for affordable unit up to 50% of the commercial construction permit fee. They also, if they're doing a mixed income or excuse me, a mixed use building and they have a commercial ground floor use, they are exempt from paying the linkage for use as a financial incentive, as well as an alternative parking ratio, which reduces their standard parking requirement down by 0.5. As you'll note, applicants who select or elect to pay the fee in lieu do not have access to any of those incentives. However, affordable housing projects are not required to comply but can access those incentives as well. We also have this secondary bucket of enhanced incentives and these to our buy right. There are some additional caveats, the most important piece being that they are providing a higher level of affordability, meaning more affordable units on site over the entirety of the building. That includes height incentives, parking exemptions and particular areas which I'll speak to on the next slide, as well as in certain instances, the affordable housing review team, which is predominantly been focused towards fully affordable housing projects, but giving staffing and capacity in the future. We anticipate that these projects can also benefit from a more streamlined concierge review. As made mentioned on the prior slide. I'm not going to go through these are really for reference but to access those enhanced incentives. As you can see, it's a higher percentage of affordable units overall that are required to be met to access those incentives . The parking reductions and exemptions have been certainly something of topic through the planning board and the various liberty meetings. So I did just want to clarify those. In our existing zoning code, as it exists today, we have an alternative parking ratio of point one parking spaces for affordable units that are income restricted up to 60% area median income. What we are proposing here is to bring forth a new reduction which is in that baseline incentive. So any project that is building affordable units on site, regardless of where they are located in the city, can take advantage of a slightly lower parking ratio for all of the units that are being part of that mixed income development. The new exemption is only available in that enhanced incentive bucket, so that means they have to be providing a greater level of affordability. What is available is in that red color here on the map today. So today, if this were to pass projects that are within a quarter mile of a fixed rail transit station and are also a mixed use or a commercial zone district can take advantage of that parking exemption. Once again, this is a minimum. They can always park above it in future iterations. And the amendment that passed out of those corridors that are grayed out or high and medium capacity transit corridors identified through Denver moves. These corridors will not come online as an area to access parking exemptions until the city makes those capital investments. You know, Colfax will be the first one, but that's still quite a few years out. So what we're really trying to do is align our regulations with the reality of the infrastructure that can support multimodal transportation and greater affordability. I'm going to now just give a quick overview as it pertains to the 30 and Blake area, as we are kind of hitting on all three regulatory pieces in this combined public hearing. 38 Then Blake area does have a variety of existing zoning, as you can see, kind of outlined in white here. The area under consideration tonight. The existing zoning consists of urban center mixed use and industrial mixed use. Some districts with heights ranging from three stories to 12 stories as well as currently has an incentive overlay which is proposed to be removed and replaced by a citywide system. The D of seven, which is a design overlay which is proposed to be retained. So computers going on its own. And then there are also some existing overlays of billboard and adult use. Those are not being touched through this part of the proposed rezoning right now. So today I'm the 38th and Blake incentive overlay allows for additional height in exchange for affordable housing fees, affordable housing or community uses. The maximum heights range in this area from 5 to 16 storeys, but we kind of see that 12 storeys being most common. What we've seen to date is that many projects do not provide affordable units because it's an incentive, it is not a requirement, and they're able to build within the base height, meaning there's no real incentive to build at higher heights and leverage that affordability. The projects that are taking advantage of the current pilot program are providing about 2 to 5%, depending upon what their development project type is, and they're serving a higher army level of 80% than what is being proposed in the future. The proposal here before you that combines a map tax syndromes amendment would allow for all projects in the 38 the Blake area, regardless of whether they're building within their base or height zone district to provide affordable housing units on site. When we've done the analysis of modeling, what we can see is that this will create 2 to 4 times more affordable units in the area, and it will also be reaching substantially lower income levels than what we currently have today, as well as it is a way of ensuring consistency of citywide regulations as it pertains to affordable housing. And we're not just keeping this older pilot program on the books. So to achieve this, how we're kind of doing it, it's a little bit nuanced, but we are removing the current incentive overlay. We are making revisions to the base height in some locations. As you can see, it's a change in the areas that kind of have that hatched green area. The red, there's no change to the base heights being proposed and the maximum heights are remaining the same. So there's no increase in overall development being proposed through this. So just a question that we commonly get. Why are we adjusting base heights in the current incentive overlay? Some of those base and incentive heights are at greater deltas than what's being proposed through the citywide. And so to ensure that we maintain the overall development capacity that is called for in our citywide and area specific adaptive plans , we are making adjustments to those base heights so we can be consistent and implemented. So now we get into the. Normal aspects of our texts, amendment and rezoning criteria. I first start with just an overview of the public process. Broad earlier spoke to the overall process of this project, but the public kind of legal process is outlined here with the required noticing and information, starting with the initial application, informational mailing, planning board, luti, so on and so forth. Getting us here to today. Additionally to that legislative process, just want to give a quick overview. These items were unanimous, immensely recommended for approval by Denver Planning Board in April. They also did make a secondary motion encouraging City Council to evaluate further expansion of the parking exemption, which did move through Ludy. Also Ludy heard all three pieces, all of which did have recommendations of approval to be moved here today, as well as two successful amendments, one of which was to expand the enhanced incentive parking exemption to a quarter mile of BRT corridors in the future that are going to have capital city investments as well as in the past amendment to maintain the CPI increase for those projects that are grandfathered in today. So as we get into the review criteria for combining them for the text, in the moment we have consistency with the plans, uniformity of restrictions, something about furthering the public health, safety and welfare for purposes of consistency with adopted plans. In your view. Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver as well as all the various plans specific to the 30th and Lexington area. As many of these were thoroughly detailed in the staff report, I'm going to go over them pretty quickly as I know we have a lot of speakers signed up, but we can always go back and refer to those as needed. So the first one being the Comprehensive Plan 2014. While there are a variety of various plan recommendations outlined in the staff report, I think the first kind of most important one here is under that equitable, affordable and inclusive goal to create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. We are also speaking to using land use regulations, meaning our zoning code, mainly to enable and encourage for private development or the market of affordable, missing middle and mixed income housing, especially where close to transit. Many of these incentives are focused there, and since it wants me to move along and just keep it going. Blueprint Denver is our land use and transportation plan, which also provides more goals and recommendations that are implemented through this than what is up here on the screen in further detail. But a couple strategy that I just really want to hit on is incentivizing affordable housing through zoning and especially in our regional centers. 38 and Blake is a regional center, are community centers, community corridors. And those areas adjacent to transit gives examples of what those look like, much of which is articulated here, as well as implementing additional parking reductions and projects that are providing income restricted affordable units. Another easy checkmark that we are implementing through this map and text amendment as well as other incentives for affordable housing that go beyond zoning, that get into permit fee reductions, process and other aspects. And it's important that we continue to acknowledge there are further barriers to affordable housing and we continue to advance those. Blueprint In Denver, the majority of this area is the urban center context. And what this rezoning or is it will continue to implement the urban center context as well as acknowledge that this is a regional community center. These are areas that are really directed through our adopted plans to accommodate more than 50% of housing and jobs growth in the area by maintaining these maximum building heights and development capacity and continuing to maintain and implement our area's adopted plans, as well as the acknowledgment of the station corridors, some of the specific plan recommendations that are specific to 38 and Blake. Further details are found in the appendix and in the staff report most recently was 38 and Blake stationary a plan amendment which really came out of an acknowledgment that this area could accommodate more growth, more housing. In exchange for that, we needed to create things that benefited the community, namely affordable housing. So it spoke to promoting taller building heights in these to the area that provides community benefits. This is now substantially increasing from from what was put on the books in 2017, the affordable housing contribution. Lastly, this texture map amendment furthers uniformity of district regulations by maintaining standards within the Denver Zoning Code and further implements public health, safety and welfare. With that, staff recommends approval of the Math and text amendment as well as approval of the DMCA amendments. With that, my presentation completes. You and Brad and Britta and Laura for the presentation this evening. We have 55 individuals signed up to speak and I'm going to go to the first few speakers that are participating virtually , and we'll alternate virtually for and against and then we'll return in person and alternate for and against in chambers here, and then we'll go back to virtual. And so I wanted to let folks know that and we're going to go ahead and start online with our first speaker, Ian Frosh.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Ian Fresh. I live in the posh Park West neighborhood. I have some concerns about this policy in its current form. I'm kind of worried it's going to backfire. I'm worried that it's going to reduce the housing supply overall, leading to higher costs overall because it's making it more expensive for developers to build housing . And the market rate units basically subsidize the lower income units. But that so so those market rate units might need to be higher than market rate, but that might not be feasible. So developers might just not build and we might just get nothing. I do like the parking requirement reduction by a half space per unit, but I'm not convinced there are enough incentives to not discourage developers from building housing in Denver. And really, I think these incentives should already be legal in all developments to encourage more abundant and cheaper housing like the higher heights and parking reductions. The parking requirement exemption near a quarter mile from. From train stations. It wasn't clear to me. I think that needs to be expanded to apply to high frequency clients that exist right now rather than in the future. So I think it sounded like it was only in the future. Bus Rapid Transit Lines and I live near Broadway station and I take the bus a lot more than the light rail because it's more convenient for us. It actually goes to more of the places it needs to go, and the light rail is basically kind of useless for getting around the city because it's mainly along the highway and through industrial areas. So I'd really prefer that exemption to apply to bus lines as well. And I also would really like the city to just legalize with more housing citywide, legalize more density mixed, use higher heights and completely get rid of parking requirements so that we're not prioritizing housing for cars over housing for people. The limits that we have right now are what got into this got us into this housing crisis. The limits cause this and fixing these artificial limits would help reduce the market rate, also making it so fewer subsidies are needed to produce low income affordable housing when the market rate is lower. So I really would like city wide zoning reform and I am concerned that this policy would just discourage developers from developing and we get less housing. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Think, thinking, thinking.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Lucia Brown.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Lucia Brown and I live in the Baker neighborhood, and my support for expanding housing affordability is tepid at best. The main reason I support it is because the reduction of parking minimums around the transit corridors, although this could go much farther as the previous speaker just mentioned. What I'd like to see is all parking minimums and maximums eliminated for all kinds of developments, not just affordable. But I'll settle for this as a start. And also the burden of helping to pay for affordable housing should be spread across the city, not just on new developments. But again, this is a first step. And ultimately I would like to see Denver legalize. All kinds of housing everywhere. And that means getting rid of single unit zoning throughout the city. And hopefully the new council will have the political will to get this done. Thanks so much.
Speaker 3: Think thinking.
Speaker 0: Julien Camara.
Speaker 6: Yes. Good evening. Members of the City Council. My name is Julian Camera. I'm a Denver resident. It's no secret that Denver has one of the largest gaps in the country between medium income and income needed to live affordability. So to live comfortably, the people of Denver have been calling for affordable housing because we're in a housing crisis and there's no end in sight. But I'm here to talk about the affordability requirement that was placed at 50% AMI. And it sounds like it's actually at 60%. Am I? But. That's missing the whole purpose of expanding affordability. The people who will benefit from this initiative are mostly those in low salary positions getting paid.
Speaker 1: 36,000.
Speaker 6: 42,000, $50,000 and more. And these are folks typically with stable employment, and that includes health insurance, a retirement plan, PTO, all the benefits that come with the salary. So these are the folks that are considered to.
Speaker 1: Be in need of affordable housing. Where does that leave them?
Speaker 6: Individuals and families who make half that while receiving less benefits and resources. I met a 20 year old the other day who's living in their car and they wouldn't qualify for an affordable unit unit under this initiative.
Speaker 1: So this bill could be an opportunity to start Denver on a new power pathway. Housing affordability is the true intention.
Speaker 6: Specifically for those who need it the most, but it needs to actually do that. And we cannot need to continue to allow the poorest people be disregarded as if they don't matter because the number of people being disregarded is growing and our city cannot sustain itself on development and profit interests. We have to take care of our people. Everyone from all different walks of life in Denver agree that housing is a crisis and they're not happy with what's going on. And we're really counting on our elected officials to make it right. So I ask that you lower the designation.
Speaker 1: Of 50% of AMI or 60%.
Speaker 6: And adopt the recommendations of local community advocates. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ethan Hemming.
Speaker 1: Good evening. It's wonderful to be here with you remotely. I appreciate the chance to express our support for oh 4 to 4. I'm the CEO of Warren Village and a proud resident of Denver. Warren Village has been around for 50 years. We provide affordable housing for single parents and their children. We do transformative, supportive services for these families. We provide early learning in two locations. In a word, we create opportunity. And that's why I'm here to testify in support of oh 4 to 4, because what we believe it will do for our latest development, our work that we're bringing forward in southwest Denver at the corner of Alameda and Pecos, hopefully in two years, we believe this initiative would allow us to take advantage of a height bonus and to go up one more story and one of our buildings on our affordable housing campus. And what that means, truly the foundation for what we do is affordable housing. And what that would do is take this development that is currently slated to be 74 units, much, much needed, 74 units. But if we could take advantage of this, we would have 89. So that's 15 families, that's 15 children, 15 moms, 15 lives that we think we could have a greater impact on. So I cannot express it any greater way than to talk about those 15 families tonight. And I just appreciate the chance to support this. Denver needs that. We are excited to be here to support it. And we truly, truly hope that it will pass. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and transition back in chambers. I'm going to call the five individuals that we have in chambers. Victoria Barriga will be our first speaker, followed by POZ Athena, Mary Coddington, Kenny Owens and Samuel Valeriano. And so, Victoria, we'll start with you.
Speaker 6: Sorry. It's okay. Okay. My name is Victoria Barriga. I live in affordable housing on Lowry, which is that 80%. Amma, am I sorry? What I'm here to talk about is. Is. Is this proposal on the we. And the linkage fees and the affordable rents. The problem with this bill is that it only affects people from 60% to 80% to 100%, which I don't understand why 100% is even in it. It it's like I said, I'm in affordable housing at 80% and and I don't make that much money. But people who are making less than 30%, less than 50%, they can't get housing. We have our ourselves we have a family member who has to live in our house with us. We it's an affordable I mean, it's ADA.
Speaker 0: Compliant for me because I need my walker to get around everywhere in the house and having that third.
Speaker 6: Person in the house makes it a lot harder. But he's unable to keep the apartment he had because of the rent increases. And he works full time, 40 hours plus a month, and he still cannot pay the rents that people are being charged here in Denver. And it's just absolutely insane. When I was renting apartments back in the seventies, eighties, nineties, you could find reasonably priced.
Speaker 1: Apartments.
Speaker 6: That made sense for the amount of income that a person made. I am on my income right now. I could not afford any of these rents. If I had to go rent somewhere, I'd be in. I've been a big piece of trouble. So it's good that that that the council is.
Speaker 0: Looking at trying to provide affordable housing. But I think.
Speaker 6: It's been said before that paying linkage fees does not address the very big problem that is happening right now in our city businesses and people are all upset about people being on the street. A way to get people off the street is to provide them with housing that they can afford so they can get into housing. And we we need to be really supporting people who are making 30% or less of that. Am I because those are the people that we're seeing that businesses are getting upset about, that residents are getting upset about, and it's not their fault. It's like it's not their fault. We have had cuts in in in the in the housing from federal since the same times. I mean, it's been going less and less and less and less. And I'm sorry, but these developers are saying that it's too expensive to develop. I'm sure there are other developers out there who would be totally willing to build something that they weren't making quite as much money on.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: I don't see my time.
Speaker 0: So that's the time allotted. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome. We're going to go ahead and go to our next speaker. So I.
Speaker 7: Guess.
Speaker 3: I was.
Speaker 0: Actually.
Speaker 2: Speaker before.
Speaker 3: 2011, my village, which is the.
Speaker 2: Single parents housing program, and that's at 30% AMI.
Speaker 3: And I can't even really afford to save up for myself going to school full time.
Speaker 0: I suppose that I could.
Speaker 3: Stop going out to eat, sometimes buying houseplants and maybe some self-care items. But for example, if somebody like Ian Frisch, I couldn't just have that kind of lifestyle of self care like he probably does in that sense that developers will develop because that's their goal, to make money, to develop spaces and gentrify. And so just because there's affordable housing asked.
Speaker 2: Doesn't mean they're not going to develop.
Speaker 3: Perhaps the greedy ones won't develop as much, but there will definitely be developers regardless. And the fact that it's 50.
Speaker 2: To 60%.
Speaker 3: AMI seriously, I'm at 30%. AMI As a full time student at Metro, I got my eighth communication with honors last two semesters ago, and now I'm working on my B.A. and my own business as well, and I'm supporting this little person and trying to get a car. And it's really difficult. I can ask you to try.
Speaker 2: And switch lives with me to maybe just see what it's like if he's even still there. But all of those developers I know we live in a plutocracy and I would like to perhaps even have conversations between the poor and them and see what comes of that. But the thing is, the plutocracy has the privilege to say no and to not talk to us and to stick their nose up at us and to all of you guys. And then unless they want to pay you so they can get their way. But not all of you guys are sold out, thankfully. But there's a lot of politicians and police officers who are sad. Because this is a plutocracy. But I really would appreciate it if there would be 30 to 40% and not just.
Speaker 0: 50 to.
Speaker 2: 60, because like that one.
Speaker 3: Guy said who said he helped develop this plan, he said it encompasses from.
Speaker 7: Homelessness all the way to home buyers. No, it doesn't.
Speaker 2: Homelessness is 30 to 40% am-I. He lied to us. He's he's trying to truly develop that. That was like a whole PR scheme or marketing scheme to cover up the truth. And that's just sad. But many of these people are just used.
Speaker 3: To covering up the truth because they're getting paid. And that's the truth.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to ask Mary. We're going to try to have a speaker go before you. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Gary Jackson. Mary Coddington, who will be here in person, and then Kenny Owens and Samuel Valero.
Speaker 4: Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. Ladies and gentlemen, Counsel, please look up at these screens. I like to see the people whom I like to see the people who killed me. The ones who should never see my five grandkids grow up. In a South sweep a month and a half ago. You blew my heart as bad as this old man out there. Now I'm scared that I'll die. Maybe right here. And you deserve it. Each and every one of you deserves that. You just can't look at me. You just seem so. Hartmann. It's all put there. I'm drowning. In terror. Strongest man I ever knew and ever. I've almost died three times this week. He blew me up in the house and came screaming. You have four tents in my camp. Spotless. It was in a stolen cookie.
Speaker 1: We caused no problems. You put a trash man in charge of armed first responders. Those cops knew me.
Speaker 4: They would have never done that. They respect me as a force for good in that community. You're trash, man. It orders the cops around. Did this to me. I'm going to die today. Right now. Tomorrow, next week. Affordable housing. What's affordable? Listen to his brain sound. I went into the streets. I took care of the schizophrenics and the fair, the children that you're going to use. I gave them.
Speaker 1: Everything I had.
Speaker 4: I didn't steal a cookie in Newtown, not one cookie. I'm going to preach to these people whose obligations and love side, Mr. Councilman, the homeless need leaders they need who is still in the need to quit.
Speaker 1: Everything we will.
Speaker 4: And show the citizens respect. But after World War Two at Nuremberg, you put those Nazi leaders on trial. And they said. You told them. You said you're guilty of crimes against humanity. We've been following Moody's. You said that's not good enough. Your obligation was.
Speaker 1: To humanity when you took them out.
Speaker 4: Hung. Our obligations each other. I'm a good man.
Speaker 1: You wanted me and you Streets. You killed me.
Speaker 4: You don't even know what's going on out there. Whose last name? Any of you ladies? With the homeless housing camps. We saw what was being done in your name with your approval. Who's this time you really thought about these issues or you said screens we.
Speaker 0: Have allotted for each speaker, we've got 3 minutes for everybody. And so we want to make sure we can hear from everybody. Thank you for being here. And we're going.
Speaker 4: To put everything on.
Speaker 0: The speaker. Her name is Mary Coddington. And so we thank you for being here. We've got a lot of folks.
Speaker 4: God bless each of you people. Please make better decisions, your soul. Rest on it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Coddington.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Council. It's nice to be here with you in person tonight. My name is Mary Coddington. I'm a resident of District nine. But tonight I'm speaking to you on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative, a coalition of 20 affordable housing providers across the.
Speaker 0: Denver metro area.
Speaker 2: Serving everyone from.
Speaker 0: Folks exiting homelessness, affordable rental housing and affordable.
Speaker 2: Homeownership. On behalf of in D.C., I am here to ask each of you to vote to approve expanding housing affordability through those for 24 and for 26. Firstly, we would like to thank CPD and host for the extensive stakeholder project stakeholder participation that they held throughout this process. We met with them several times and really felt that our thoughts.
Speaker 0: And feedback were considered and are represented to you in the final draft proposal tonight.
Speaker 2: And I want to spend a lot of time tonight talking about the need for affordable housing. I know that all of you are acutely aware of that. And we have a lot of representatives in the audience tonight that can speak firsthand. But one point that I want to call out is that.
Speaker 0: Affordable housing developers.
Speaker 2: Build and manage approximately 7% of the housing stock within the city. And yet 33% of Denver households are housing costs burden, and up to.
Speaker 0: 50% of renters are housing cost burden.
Speaker 2: So the affordable housing sector alone can't necessarily manage all of that need that's out there. And the pace of affordable housing development will never keep up with the pace of market rate development. Therefore, it's imperative that the private sector serve a portion of the growing needs. You'll probably hear tonight that it's unfair to put the burden of affordable housing onto one sector, but that's really not the case. As Britta and Brad mentioned earlier, this is one of a series of tools that's used to address the housing need in our community. And by focusing, you know, incorporating the this income range into market rate development, it frees up other resources in the city to address the lower aims that I know a lot of folks are concerned about tonight. This program is designed to build mixed income communities, which is essential for access for folks to be able to have amenities such as high quality schools and parks and grocery stores.
Speaker 0: But it's.
Speaker 2: Also important to remember that this is only a first step towards economic integration, and it should be followed by loosening the land use restrictions that limited owners ability to build.
Speaker 0: Different housing forms on their property.
Speaker 2: Once again, the affordable housing development community that's represented by in D.C. request that you approve this proposal and provide an additional tool to achieve housing stability in Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kenny Owens.
Speaker 10: Hi.
Speaker 1: I'm Kenny Owens. I'm an advocate for those experiencing homelessness.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: I don't know what zip code I'm in most of the time.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: I'm a rough sleeper. And as I see it, these you're your host. I don't know how effective they are because those outside two inclement weather days.
Speaker 10: And.
Speaker 1: They didn't. They didn't. What do they call it when they, uh, they. They didn't declare inclement weather, so nobody got vouchers. Uh huh. But their numbers seem to be supported by everybody who's spoken. And what they were saying is that lesser the EMI that would be supported. I mean, this would be 36,000. Now they're looking at 41,000. So my question to your would be four years within maybe not this term, but next term you're up for reelection and people were paying a 400, $400 rent increase every year. Are y'all going to be able to get the votes for anything lower than 30% being looked after?
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 1: Y'all are looking at 60%. And in Seattle, they did that. In L.A., they did. We're trying to overcome some of the challenges of homelessness while we're doing this. And I don't think that it measures that will increase homelessness by double will. Be effective, I. If, uh, if you can tell somebody who is making $57,470, uh oh, that's hard. So twice the, uh, fitting end to 50% and mine in four years because of the effect they will take place with, uh, with building these developments that don't have to pay linkage fees so that there is affordable housing. What's it going to do to the rest? And rent is my question. Everybody else is. Thanks for your time. I agree.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker in chambers is Samuel Valentino. And then we're going to go ahead and transition to virtually sounds. Go ahead, Samuel.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Sam Valeriano and I'm the health policy manager for the BE Well Health and Wellness Initiative of the Foundation for Sustainable Urban Communities. I live in Council District six and the organization I work for primarily serves the diverse communities in Council districts eight and 11. The Bible Health and Wellness Initiative has a mission to effect programs, policies and practices to support health equity and create a culture in which all people genuinely have the opportunity to achieve the health status that they desire regardless of their race, income, gender, education, or any other social barrier. As we will hear from probably some of the supporters of this bill, the quality and affordability, quality, affordability and stability of a home are foundational to human health and wellness. Over the last decade, more than 100,000 people have moved into our city. This coincided with a massive increase in housing costs. In 2012, the median home price in Denver was around $200,000 and the median rent was about 1100 dollars a month. Today, the median home price is more than 550,000, and the median rent is almost 1800 dollars a month. Statewide, the number of available housing units that are considered affordable for people making less than $45,000 a year has been cut in half since 2010. Today, more than 100,000 Denver households spend at least 30% of their monthly income on rent or mortgage payments, and nearly 50,000 households spend more than half of their monthly income on housing costs , leaving precious little room for other basic necessities like food, transportation and health care. And we all know about the continuous plight of our own house population whose ranks continue to grow at a seemingly exponential rate. Now, while we understand and recognize the fact that there are issues like mental health and addiction that contribute to homelessness, we understand that the root cause is a lack of affordable places to live. According to one estimate reported in Denver earlier this year, the city and county of Denver needs at least 50,000 new units of housing just to keep up with demand. So we support these zoning amendments because they make very necessary, if long overdue reforms to the zoning code that will enhance our city's ability to increase the housing supply, ultimately stabilize costs, and eventually bring some level of relief to a majority of Denver residents. Thank you very much for your time this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to transition back virtually. And our next speaker is Brandi mangers. And it's not looking like we have Brandi with us and so we're going to go ahead and move on. Charles Allison Godfrey. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Councilmember. Hi. My name is Charles Allison Godfrey. I'm a resident of Denver District six. I'm also an employee of Elevation Community Land Trust, an organization that creates affordable homeownership opportunities for Denver at and below 80% of the area median income. I'm testifying on behalf of elevation today. We support Denver's expanding housing affordability plan because it will increase our city's affordable housing stock. Homeownership is transformative at both family and community levels. Families. Homeownership built into generational wealth benefits, educational outcomes, and improves physical and mental health for the community. Increased homeownership rates, raise community wealth and increase the amount of cash that families have to spend in the local economy. Investing in homeownership is also important because it is one of the main drivers of the racial wealth gap. The typical white family has five times the wealth of the typical Hispanic family and eight times that of typical black family. This corresponds with the fact that 68% of white households own their own home, while 52% of Hispanic and 37% of black households put in their homes. These statistics show the importance of investing in affordable homeownership for our cities residents of color who are disproportionately overrepresented at lower income levels. The Expanding Housing Affordability Ordinance will not cure all of Denver housing problems, but adding affordable homeownership opportunities to the city's housing stock is a crucial step in the right direction that will not overly impact developers profits nor their incentive to develop. However, when the city considered discretionary agreements under the alternative compliance options of these ordinances, Elevation urges the city government to maximize community benefits in these agreements. Instead of allowing these alternative compliance options to be a backdoor for housing developers to escape their responsibilities under the plan, Elevation Community Land Trust expresses deep gratitude to the city employees and advocates who are involved in drafting the plan and ask you to vote yes to adopt it. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Think, think, think.
Speaker 0: Speaker is Tyler Carlson.
Speaker 1: Hello, counsel, good to see you tonight here on behalf of Nathan ICC. And I am a Denver resident and I want to first of all thank Brad and Annalise and the rest of their team for all the outreach that they provided over the last many months. While we don't always agree on everything. I think we do agree that we're all working hard to create a better city here in Denver, and we're really appreciative for all of the time and effort they spent listening to the real estate industry and trying to incorporate our feedback into the program. I do want to, as a commercial real representative, I we are concerned that we're creating a housing affordability problem for a small business affordability problem, because most small businesses rent their commercial space and the increased linkage fees that are being voted on tonight, which in some cases increase up to 400%, are going to trickle down to increased rents for our tenants because it's increasing the cost of commercial structures. So I think that should be something that the council weighs tonight in its decision and do want to encourage staff and council to be pretty mindful of the 14 month, I believe, threshold for obtaining approvals because as has recently been in the press, the Denver process has gotten longer and much more protracted than in the past, and we are very much concerned that projects are moving forward in good faith, will be caught in the gaps on delays in processing and will be subject to fees that they currently are not planning on because the runway is frankly too short on the timeframe for getting their piece approved. I think again, 14 months as I recall. As a private citizen, I support this program from a mixed income neighborhoods perspective. You know, I live in Parkville. I have lived in the Central Park neighborhood for a decade, and I see the value for my personal life and my family's life and living in a mixed income, integrated neighborhoods. And I think this proposal will do that. But I cannot support this as a housing affordability program because it will not decrease the cost of housing overall. There will be a select few who are fortunate enough to get subsidized rents, but those rents are subsidized by their neighbors. You know, I've got two kids who go to East High School, and if there's five boys, you want to go buy a $10 pizza. They each throw in two bucks, they buy a $10 pizza. If the government decides that only one boy has to pay a dollar, then guess what? The other four boys got to pay an extra $0.25 or they don't get a pizza. And I think that's the reality of this program is it does not decrease the cost of housing for its construction. All it does is limit the income potential from a certain segment of the renter pool. And either two things happen. Those lost the rents for the subsidized units got to have to be paid for by the other residents. The 80% or the project doesn't happen. And that's the mathematical economic reality of this program that was actually mentioned.
Speaker 0: David Pardo is the next speaker.
Speaker 1: David Pardo I live in the River North neighborhood and I actually wanted to speak specifically to that. I don't just live specifically in Liver River North, I also work in the neighborhood and both my work and my home are in the over. What was the overlay district around the train station? And so out of my window you can see a whole bunch of cranes. There are three that are visible right now and I like that. I like seeing this city grow. I like the fact that we're turning this neighborhood into a more vibrant place where there are more things to do, there are more people around. And so I would be speaking to a specific amendment that was presented tonight, would like to see that amendment not be adopted. I think that this neighborhood can accommodate the vertical growth. There aren't very many low lying housing type buildings left. Almost everything that's low lying is a warehouse space. Many of them are vacant. I walk past them on a daily basis. And so I have mixed feelings about the the entire program, because as the last speaker just said, if you lower the rents for a few people, some people have to pay more. That being said, I live in a building that's like that. We have limited income folks that live in the building that pay a little less rent. I pay a little more rent because of it. I don't mind. I don't think it's a bad deal. But I am concerned if what it does is it causes projects to not pencil. If a developer comes in and they say, I need to make I want to do this with this piece of land. And they realize that by having affordable units, they can't make the project work in a way that the bank will approve. Then we just don't get those units. They don't build the building. That's how development works. I know this because I work in the industry, and so to me, it's important to not say, Oh, let's not do this, but to make sure that over the coming years we look at the effects of this program on the amount of housing that gets built. Do we end up with more housing because of this? Because we get height incentives? Do we get less housing because developers are scared of building and having to build affordable units? I can't say one way or the other what's going to happen, but I think it's important to watch and see what happens. So that we can figure out, is this working perfectly? Does it need to be changed? What do we need to do with it so that our city gets what it needs? The last thing I wanted to speak to is I'm excited to see less parking. I don't think we need that much of it in a city that has as many things as it has. We have at this point, half a dozen ways to get to the mountains on public transit. So I don't think providing parking is the most important thing that we can do. I think it's providing housing for people. So and with that, I think that's good.
Speaker 2: All right. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker that we had online was Luke Leary. And it doesn't look like we have Luke with us. And so we're going to go ahead and transition then back into chambers here. Our first speaker is Joel Noble.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I live in Curtis Park. Although I serve on several boards and commissions, including the Denver Planning Board, I'm speaking here tonight only on my own behalf. First, I'd like to encourage council to vote in favor of each of the items on the agenda relating to expanding housing affordability. There's a lot to like in this package serving the range of incomes, either directly with included affordable units or indirectly by the linkage fee, providing funds that the city can use to help those who need even deeper levels of affordability. Thank you to the Council sponsors of this effort, to the staff and to the Community Advisory Committee that worked for so long on this, and we're ready to act. When the state gave the latitude to pursue this approach. In specific tonight, I want to speak to the 38th and Blake portion of the proposal. I served as Curtis Park Neighbors representative in 2016 to 2017 to the Community Steering Committee for the height amendments and the incentive overlay to the 38th and Blake Station area. As you know, the existing affordability incentive here was put in place as the city's pilot of what could be done to incentivize, including affordable housing, which at the time could not be required by offering additional height. That was that was as much as the city could do legally through that process. We had a consensus reached on building heights that were higher than they were previously allowed. And the map is block by block negotiated with all the neighborhoods surrounding that area. Tonight's proposal thoughtfully brings forward the maximum heights that we're in that agreement, and then the current zoning incentive overlay. That was the consensus from 2017. But now the affordability is going to be required and expected, which we couldn't do before. Previously is unless Hoke spoke to those who chose to do the incentive. Height would provide between two and 5% of the units affordable to get that height. Now, they'll just provide between eight and 10% affordability because of what I hope you'll pass tonight and consistent with the community vision. We do want to have the ability to stretch to do more. So if they do more affordability than that and have the incentive levels, then and only then can they hit the maximum heights that were agreed to in 2017. This brings forward an incredibly thoughtful way. The intention of the community to allow additional heights only when affordability is required and to have an incentive. And for that reason, and for so many more in this very comprehensive package, I encourage you to support this as it addresses one of our most critical issues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Dominique Mack. And then the next speakers are Gerald Horner, Teresa Howard and and the Christian Coalition. Go ahead, please. I like to the council, first off.
Speaker 6: For allow me to come up here and basically let you all know how I feel. I just want to say I don't know what happened last time I was here, but the hearing about the walkout broke my heart because as a young lady that grew up having, you know, a lot of hope in our justice system that her because as a person to be homeless and a mother, I raised my children. So I believe that our system works. You punish those who do wrong. You reward those who do wrong. And you hear those who cry for help. And, you know, they're just kind of let down on me. So I just I hope everybody's past that now. So first and foremost, I'd like to say this much. I really can't say much. I'm not, quote, no stance, because all these faces here, you have our our mailmen, our doctors, our lawyers, our homeless, you have everybody here and letting you know how this bill is affecting us. This COVID has really made us see that homelessness and this whole situation is it's prejudice. It can affect all of us. And I really want you to take the time to consider this bill, because this might be your grandmother. And as you see, we had a grandmother standing here to speak on behalf of this situation to where? They income is not able to support this and to be out there in a tent helping somebody in these situations every day, watching the people that you go to sleep next to wake up and they in that hypothermia or heat exhaustion from being out here because they can't afford adequate housing. Are we asking you all to do is just revise this? Yes. This is the first step to change, but at least revise this because it's not flexibility. It's not flexibility for us. This out here, we are people's moms. We are people's grandmothers. We are people's fathers. We are your family. And we just want you all to know that we're here and just take the time to consider that. And I just want to say thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Gerald Horner.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Gerald Horner. I live in the Five Points neighborhood of District nine, and I'm here tonight to express my support for the recommendations that have come out of the Expanding Housing Affordability Project. I have to acknowledge, though, that this does.
Speaker 10: Not address the most vulnerable in our community those.
Speaker 1: In the zero, the 30%, and I those that are on the street today. Nonetheless, this these proposals, this proposal does address the need we have for workforce housing.
Speaker 10: We are we certainly have a crisis.
Speaker 1: Across all income spectrums.
Speaker 10: But to have housing geared toward teachers.
Speaker 1: Nurses, firefighters and the like is.
Speaker 10: Certainly critical to the city's.
Speaker 1: Livability. It's also important to note that this engagement that the city has had with the with the neighborhoods and the community over the last couple of years is also what we saw back when the original 38th and Blake overlay were created. There was tremendous community engagement and number of us that live in the area participated in those meetings. And we know that it was important at that time that this affordable.
Speaker 10: Housing was something that was critical.
Speaker 1: To improve the livability of our city. I am an advocate for supporting aspects of Livable City that include smart growth. Smart density. One of.
Speaker 10: The biggest concerns we have as.
Speaker 1: Residents is the very is the fact that as the city grows and we increase in our density, we're seeing a decrease in quality of life for our pedestrians, for cyclists, for families trying to cross the streets in our inner, inner city neighborhoods.
Speaker 10: And we're asking that.
Speaker 1: The city look at the neighborhood plans that have been developed over many years across the city that address issues such as traffic calming measures, ball about different converting streets from one way to two way that would help reduce the speeds in our neighborhoods and so on. So while this is part of the this is a tremendous step forward in helping with housing affordability. I would also ask that our incoming mayor and city council look closely at the existing neighborhood plans that call for increasing safety measures to make our inner city neighborhoods more livable, more livable. Thank you again for voting in support of these programs put out by expanding housing affordability. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Tyrese Howard. Hello.
Speaker 3: Truce Howard with House Keys Action Network, Denver. So the stable which enabled this city bill opened the doors for much needed city.
Speaker 0: Action to restrict prices and newly.
Speaker 3: Developed housing. We are in agreement with those supporting this bill that the city should mandate developers build housing.
Speaker 0: At restricted prices.
Speaker 3: However, we do not support this bill because it sets in stone a standard for acceptable affordability that will never create housing for our community. Poor and houseless people are left out entirely of this plan. We have been told by counsel people that, quote, no one ever said this plan was intended to meet the.
Speaker 0: Housing needs of people.
Speaker 3: Under 50 or 30%. And I. We're expected to be okay with this. To be grateful that maybe, just maybe, someday, funds will trickle down to build housing for poor and houseless people. We are told we have shelters and expected to accept that this is the inevitable way of life and that things for for for in houses, people . Well, housing is built for people above 60%. And I know. Thank you. We do not accept this. It was said today that the most need is at 60% AMI. This is not.
Speaker 6: True.
Speaker 3: And as city reports themselves, state people at 30% and I are 60, 64% of people at 30%. Army are severely cost burden. And compare that to 2% of people at 100% ami are severely cost burden. The report for this plan states that the city wants to meet the greatest needs yet. This bill includes housing created at.
Speaker 0: 100% AMI.
Speaker 3: And not for people at 30%. If Denver really believes that it is, then it should be meeting the greatest needs that the development should be required to build below 50%. In addition, looking at the linkage fee, it's great that there was an increase in that linkage fee. However, that does not cover the cost of building another unit. And so, again, we're expected to wait for that money to trickle down to people who are actually low income. You say it's not financially feasible. Yes, I understand that the financing of housing for poor people who can't afford the.
Speaker 0: Insane rents.
Speaker 3: Must depend much more on developers or on.
Speaker 0: Our government.
Speaker 3: Or others. But is this really not feasible? If it's feasible for developers to have high priced rents in apartments and keep many of them empty? Is it not feasible for those to be left reserved for people under 30%? Am I? If it's feasible for the city to pay millions of dollars for new sports stadiums and millions of dollars on policing and jails, is it not feasible to mandate that housing be put at 30% AMI.
Speaker 0: For each speaker?
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speakers, Andy, question.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Andy Christian. I live in West Colfax, currently represented by District one, soon to be District three. I'm just so pleased to be here tonight and I'm really, really pleased at the work that city council has done. I don't represent any organization. I am not part of any developer, and I've being paid by anybody to be here. I just am really encouraged by, honestly, the forward thinking, the strong thinking and the clever thinking, community focused thinking that has gone into this proposal. It started in a place without certain state laws that it now has the power to take advantage of. We now take advantage of existing laws and communities across Colorado. Large cities, small towns can all take advantage of the state laws that it sounds like due to our advocacy as a city. Instead of entertaining this, conversations with state lawmakers are now possible. I also think something else that we're missing out on or instead of not recognizing here, is the political courage it takes actually to implement something.
Speaker 0: Like this.
Speaker 1: In one of our biggest housing markets, city in county of Denver right here. You have folks like Lakewood, folks like Boulder. You folks like other cities nearby, you know, good cities, nice people there. But they have a problem with affordability, too. And I think to be able to take on sort of this type of policy, which is not an experiment, it's been tried in many other cities and states across the country. And to take on this policy in our biggest housing market in Denver is an act of political courage. I just have some little questions. Not that I looked at the answer tonight, but I want to entertain perhaps down the road. So this policy has a number of kind of knock ons that I find really fascinating, and I'm interested to kind of keep track of these. For instance, the West Area plan kind of implements height restrictions along the south side of the gulch, which is where the W line runs. And we'll further area plans like potentially the West Area plan looks to be doing what they implement strict height limits, which is perhaps a backdoor to limiting incentivize building height under deeper affordability. Will developers themselves look for it? Look to rezone parcels to slightly higher floor so that they're incentivized to leapfrog the limit of earlier incentive sites? They could have taken on, you know, from IMX 5x7 and they can suddenly go really high up and will rezonings drop? As developers find it's actually just very easy to instead of going through the rezoning process to just take on their buy. Right. Deeper affordability. I'm interested too, I think in something that a previous speaker said that the commercial real estate market in Denver, one of the small changes that have been suggested by community stakeholders was the commercial ground floor like linkage fee dropping that for new mixed use development. I wonder if down the road that means that we have a resurgence of weird retail back in Denver because we can afford to have a space that didn't have to pay a linkage fee that is ubiquitous in every new development around town. Again, I just want to thank you for your courage to do this work. There's so much more to be done. So much more to be done, as many of the other speakers have said tonight. But I think this is a very important first step and especially gives other political leaders in Colorado encouraged, too. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker are going to be a group of speakers virtually. And so we're moving back to Zoom. Nolan McGowan is first.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. My name is No. Let me go. I'm part of the Global Response Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. And I guess I'm assuming that this will pass City Council tonight and therefore asking the city council and city staff very closely monitor this because I do believe there's a lot of potential unintended consequences that could come out of this. I was part of the committee for this and feel like the power in that committee was weighted towards the developer's stated bottom line instead of the needs of the people in this city. Well, I fully understand this is a market based solution. I don't think that it's creative enough to encourage partnerships either with affordable housing developers or the surrounding community of with private developments. I also don't see this proposal as bold enough or equitable enough to support. We know that there are areas that are vulnerable to displacement, and we need to address the biggest gaps in affordable housing, which is below 60%. And there are some major red flags when it comes to equity that we would hope that you are paying close attention to. Having across the board requirement across the city takes up for that very small amount of high cost area could actually encourage development in these neighborhoods, especially areas like us that are receiving high amounts of investment. For this reason, we proposed an equity pilot for the next neighborhoods that are currently receiving the highest amounts of public investment investment. That amendment was not approved at committee, and we really need you all to pay particular attention to this and track. If there's becoming concentrated development in these neighborhoods where the land cost less, if part of the purpose is to have affordable housing throughout Denver in areas that do not have affordable housing. Now, there's a lot of reasons why this isn't going to reach that outcome, including exclusive zoning in these neighborhoods and other impacts, ongoing impacts of redlining . Unfortunately, there are not enough accompanying policies to prevent ongoing patterns of displacement and destructive development in this proposal, and this could exacerbate patterns of displacement instead of stopping them. While we have this new Impact Investment Fund, we still don't know what it's being used for. We still don't know if that will be connected to affordable housing. We have the equity rezoning again. We don't know what's going to come out of that, and we are very concerned that this would be used for reasons to replace an actual conversation in agreement with community for changing neighborhoods like us that are very overwhelmed with new residential development. That's replacing an industrial uses. We really need more tools to be able to encourage equitable development. In order to get the lower arms we're going to we need a greater affordability. We also can't count on any developer going any lower at.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Keynote speaker joining us virtually is Keith Pryor.
Speaker 6: Hey.
Speaker 0: Keith Pryor into the queue.
Speaker 1: Hey, can you hear me? Yes, yes. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Keith Pryor live in the Five Points area and definitely in support of all three of these motions before you tonight. Definitely want to address the 38th and Blake Street Station and I do oppose the amendments that are being brought forward. There was extensive community outreach in that plan that allowed for the right incentives for the additional affordability. And now that we're mandating the affordability and not if that were to not pass, then you would be taking those developable spaces away from that which was already granted. And so it is critical that those two pieces move together because you are mandating the affordability. And we did agree for those additional height incentives in that area for that additional affordability. So that is a critical piece. I do think that that this is definitely something that is needed in the city. I do believe that DHS is a great partner that is working on the 0 to 30% and is an amazing partner in that. And we are meeting those needs, but obviously we need to meet them more. But this is not the program for that. I do have concerns and I'm hoping that down the road that the council will revisit one of I think one of the glaring missed pieces of this, and that is single family development. I don't believe that the linkage fees are sufficient enough. I think that this really does punish those that are trying to build density and help solve our problem while yet giving a free pass to those that continue to support sprawl, continue to support a car dependent city. And there is a need to basically say enough is enough on sprawl and that we have Master Masterplan communities in Green Valley Ranch, Montebello, Lowry, Central Park. There is no affordability. All of those houses will all be 400, 600, $800,000 because they're one house. And you're not basically capturing that market and you are supporting sprawl drive till you qualify by not having sufficient linkage fees and really discouraging single family development when we need more multifamily. And so I hope down the road that we will revisit this topic and really note the unsustainability single family development, because it really does promote more car dependency and it really does not support a sustainable community and a sustainable city. And you guys are giving them a free pass with this particular proposal that's in front of you.
Speaker 0: Added we're going to go ahead and transition back into chambers. Tyler Isreal is our next speaker, followed by Kinsey Hastert, Jerry Burton, Naomi Amaya and Kerry Washington.
Speaker 6: Hey, it's Tyler again. I just wanted.
Speaker 3: To say that all of these previous speakers have all been bringing up some very.
Speaker 6: Good points. And the general.
Speaker 3: Gist, which is basically what I have planned out.
Speaker 0: Is that this bill, this proposal.
Speaker 6: I would be in support of it if it was more inclusive.
Speaker 3: On the.
Speaker 0: Income level, I'm hearing less than 50%.
Speaker 2: Am I?
Speaker 6: The system once again, is just kind of going to forget about us. I know I don't make over 50%, am I? So there be the huge air quotes on the word affordable. Let's be real. The one.
Speaker 2: Thing that would work is if.
Speaker 0: Landlords and rental companies were restricted from charging more than one third.
Speaker 2: Whatever minimum wages.
Speaker 6: After taxes. With a 40 hour workweek.
Speaker 0: They want you to make three times the rent. And so that would be beneficial for everyone. Right now, the majority of the working class is convinced that this entire system is meant to keep us down.
Speaker 6: And not not protect us, but.
Speaker 2: Rather protect people's assets. But we are the people with no assets to begin with.
Speaker 0: Those who don't have assets and want them.
Speaker 6: Are pushed and forced back down to square one and live their whole life at square.
Speaker 2: One, if you will.
Speaker 0: Isn't the whole concept of renting from someone who does have their own property?
Speaker 2: Help to meant you are meant to help you save until you can get your own property. Renting is collectively more expensive.
Speaker 6: Than buying property like over the.
Speaker 0: Course of your entire life, but that requires.
Speaker 6: A lot of investment at once, and it's really hard to save for that if the majority of someone's income is being put towards housing to begin with. This isn't rocket science, y'all.
Speaker 2: If the jobs paid enough in.
Speaker 6: Housing was affordable, we wouldn't see those tents. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kinsey Hastert.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilmembers. My name is Kinsey Halstead. I'm a resident of District ten.
Speaker 0: But this evening I'm here in my role as state and local policy director for Enterprise Community.
Speaker 2: Partners.
Speaker 0: Enterprise works nationally and in Denver to increase the supply of affordable housing, advance racial equity, and build resilience and upward mobility. I'm here to voice Enterprise's support for the expanding housing affordability proposal. I'd like to start by briefly thanking council members and Sandoval and their staff Annaliese Hoke, Brad Wine and in the teams at CPD and host and all the members of the advisory committee who have worked to put this policy before you today. Enterprise is proud to have served on the advisory committee and believes the proposal is a needed tool to create more affordable units through mixed income development and generate new funds for the city to invest in more and more deeply affordable homes. In particular, we appreciate tying the creation of new market rate housing to onsite affordable units, which will help advance more equitable access to community benefits and economic opportunity. Prioritizing units that are affordable to renters and homebuyers with incomes at 60 and 80% of area median income, while also providing flexibility for developers to include units affordable to individuals and families living on less. Ensuring the fee in lieu is high enough to meaningfully disincentivize developers from choosing this alternative to providing affordable homes in mixed income development. Prioritizing neighborhoods where residents are particularly vulnerable to involuntary displacement for the city's investment of fees in lieu collected from such communities and significantly increasing existing linkage fees projected to generate millions of dollars each year in much needed funding for affordable production and preservation. We further understand and appreciate the units created through this policy should ease investment demand for this income bracket, allowing the city to dedicate a greater share of its affordable housing resources, including those generated through increased linkage fees and fees in lieu to providing homes for those with incomes below 60% AMI. And we look forward to working with the city to help ensure these outcomes.
Speaker 2: We do recognize the.
Speaker 0: Benefits to affordable housing necessarily operate within the constraints of a market driven solution, and that while a critical step forward, this is but one piece of a much bigger puzzle of Denver's affordable housing solution. To that end, we appreciate the concerns of many of those here tonight and of partners representing neighborhoods experiencing particularly deep affordability needs and significant involuntary displacement. We hope to continue to engage with.
Speaker 2: These partners to advance.
Speaker 0: Equity in implementation and future policies and investments led by and serving these communities. Enterprise urges your support of the proposed.
Speaker 2: Package and looks forward to our shared.
Speaker 0: Work ahead to ensure everyone Brite has an affordable, safe and healthy place to call home. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jerry Burton, followed by Naomi Amaya and then Kerry Washington.
Speaker 4: Hello, my name is Burton. And with hand, I'm a veteran as well. Well, most of the thing that we're going to say have been said. And so I'm not going to duplicate it. What I'm saying is this bill does not do anything for us. A cellphone has already been done, was already going on in this city. The legal fee is too low because if they do not build for affordable, you only get back at the minimum $30,000 per unit. And that is not right. $30,000 per unit is nightmare enough to even begin to build a house of affordability. If you're going to put a little fee, we're losing our house by paying $30,000 or so to lose it to a market rate. Why not make them buy another unit at 200 to $250000 with a legacy CFP? And that way you will continue to have the housing that affordability, because at this rate that you are beginning to get this link to see that mean that we are losing at least one house every time that charge $30,000 depending on what that industry would be at the time a solution you charge them $250,000 or more, so that way you would not lose none. Now you got the.
Speaker 1: Money to build.
Speaker 4: The house. Affordability. Another thing I want to say, I'm a make this very short because I've been talking all day and I'm kind of tired and New York is tired as well. And I know anything that I can say. You know, I already heard. You already know. But why would why pass a bill that on what you already are doing in the beginning and what that would do? With that being said, I'm going to say leader unhoused people alone and find a way to give them a home and start to continue to do the sweeps and all that. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Naomi Amaya.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President, and members of the City Council. I'm happy to speak in support of the expanding housing affordability policy. My name is Naomi Almon. I'm the director of policy and government.
Speaker 9: Affairs for the.
Speaker 2: Denver Foundation. But our foundation is the Community Foundation here in the metro region that has been funding non-profits, working to expand the affordable housing supply here in the region, but also provide systemic supports to respond to a history of exclusionary housing policies. And we've heard a lot from Kim.
Speaker 7: Yeah, sure, sure.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: I can happily do that. Thank you. I need a reminder some time. So we've heard a lot about the city of Denver and the housing crisis that we're in. We don't have enough units. They're not affordable. And we really are at a point where policy interventions are needed. We've heard a lot tonight about the expanding housing affordability proposal. It's a tool that will help in providing increased number of units as a new development is happening and increase the much needed increase in the linkage fees, but also providing for that family with the hope of putting more funding into our affordable housing fund. From a public welfare perspective, we really need to grow and maintain the existing affordable housing supply here in the metro region. Data and a lot of the community feedback has really shared that housing security is not evenly distributed across the population and it really disproportionately impacts those individuals from various racial and ethnic backgrounds, older individuals, and those living with the lowest incomes. That said, we recognize, again, this is one of many tools that's needed to address the affordable housing supply. We're really excited about the city's work on housing prioritization and really will look forward to working with the city and other community partners in their work in furthering policy efforts and funding to address the much needed need for housing here in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kerry Washington, followed by Adam.
Speaker 2: Hi, Councilor. Thank you for your time today. I am coming before you about this bill and I'm one of the ones that are under 30%.
Speaker 6: And I tried to qualify for some.
Speaker 2: Affordable housing and it had to be three times my income. So if it.
Speaker 7: Wasn't for the vouchers that I received, I wasn't able.
Speaker 6: To give into any of the affordable housing. So it kind of made it difficult for me to even try to proceed.
Speaker 2: So the affordable housing was not implemented because of the three times the rent for the and I end up finding something and then it went down to two times the rent.
Speaker 7: So by me being on the 30% less, I was still unable to qualify.
Speaker 6: But I fought the system and then I tried to make sure that everything went through.
Speaker 2: So yes, I got affordable housing, but it was a fight.
Speaker 7: I look out for my colleagues that are out here still trying to.
Speaker 2: Apply and trying to get approved for affordable housing. And it's very hard out here, especially in Denver. Denver County, it's not easy at all. Also, they push you to the outskirts of Denver County and try to get you to go to the other counties around Denver selections so that you can be able to afford the affordable housing , which is not fair. I don't consider that fair. Then not only the other counties.
Speaker 7: That are still.
Speaker 2: Out there unable to get housing.
Speaker 7: Is the.
Speaker 1: Hard.
Speaker 2: For them. I just wish that this act would not pass because I really think.
Speaker 7: They need to work more on.
Speaker 6: The affordable housing.
Speaker 2: So that everybody can qualify or at least be able to get affordable housing within their minimal rates of under the 30%, which is still quite high for people who are.
Speaker 7: On fixed incomes or or disabled or.
Speaker 2: Just unable to get within a minimum wages of.
Speaker 6: Working.
Speaker 2: Or being able to get affordable housing for individuals. I mean, just individuals under the age of 50. On down, they're still not able to get affordable housing. So that's where we're at right now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Adam Astrof.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for having me tonight. City Council. My name's Adam Astrup. I live in the Baker neighborhood and am a candidate for the Denver City Council District seven seat. I'm here today to support the expanding housing affordability policy. Once again, our staff have gone out of their way to produce something that is technically very efficient. It's very effective. It will not harm market rate development in our city. It has some process improvements that will help get affordable housing on the road, on our streets.
Speaker 0: Faster in our.
Speaker 1: Neighborhoods. And that's something that we all support. But unfortunately, this policy, just as it won't hurt market rate development, is also not going to go far enough to dig us out of our hole. I think that you've heard tonight that Denver voters, you know, from many different Army brackets, neighborhoods and political affiliations might big action on the housing crisis. And this, unfortunately, I think, really was the easy path instead of the right one. It once again keeps affordable housing.
Speaker 0: Constrained.
Speaker 1: Near the most polluted portions of our city. It doesn't.
Speaker 2: Serve.
Speaker 1: All of the Americans that we need, and it can't produce the number of housing units that we need. So for those of you who will be here after the next election, I hope we can work on more. But I do think Denver voters are tired of a politics that feels like a feud between old high school classmates . And I think that they're looking for something more and real solutions that can actually work. So I think this was a good one. It's a good step. And I hope next year that we can all work together to tackle these problems at every single AM event, because that's the last thing I just want to add here. There's been a lot of talk about competition between providing housing for 0 to 30 Army versus 60 to 80%. Those two services, we need them all. We're short every single army band. They're not in competition with each other. They're both in deficit. 60% Army is two parents working full time at Wal-Mart with two kids. They deserve housing people who are in crisis. We're coming out of an issue or they need help with addiction. They deserve housing, too. We can do more. So again, thanks so much for this first step and look forward to talking to you more.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker in person is paradise. William Wilson. Excuse me. Paradise Wilson. Paradise, Wilson. Okay. We'll go ahead and transition back on to Zoom. And so our first speaker is Brandi Majors.
Speaker 5: Well. Can it be heard?
Speaker 2: It's about time I got back in your house the first time.
Speaker 5: I don't know what happened.
Speaker 6: All right, so I got 3 minutes almost.
Speaker 2: In my personal opinion.
Speaker 6: This bill. My personal opinion is a major.
Speaker 5: Why? Well, first of all, this is not for the people.
Speaker 6: It is for as usual.
Speaker 5: WIP is creative for Spirit four. That's what it is. Let's look at it for what it is. Does not help the people.
Speaker 2: The only positive thing I've heard out of any of this presentation, and it's probably just.
Speaker 6: From the men they spoke with about War Village.
Speaker 2: That was the only thing that sounded positive.
Speaker 5: To me at all. Everything else. Garbage, trash, trash, trash. And if not, this is your problem. This is what you did.
Speaker 6: You have to fix it.
Speaker 5: So you think it all sounds good. It then lays it out all nice and neat.
Speaker 2: But it's not for the people.
Speaker 6: Where the people.
Speaker 5: The people have been consistently telling you what they need.
Speaker 6: You be consistently.
Speaker 5: Ignoring the people. So the two people on this council.
Speaker 6: To deserve their position. They've really, really.
Speaker 2: Stepped it up, really worked out, shot.
Speaker 5: Up the bucket.
Speaker 6: But catch me. Oh, without you.
Speaker 2: Too. I mean, where would we be now?
Speaker 5: As poor as everybody else. Political musical chairs season update your resume me pray they don't call me because I tell you.
Speaker 2: You're not worthy of a job.
Speaker 5: The other thing is this British bishop.
Speaker 6: In ten people before, ten people behind.
Speaker 2: Underneath, they should be fired and everything else with that. These service providers have not been helping the people they have.
Speaker 5: You already know they have it.
Speaker 2: It's always a service provider.
Speaker 3: Linking you to this.
Speaker 5: Really? Could you do that? Where would you do that? Where is the success in this?
Speaker 2: We don't want to hear that. People don't want to hear from the people running these programs.
Speaker 3: The people come.
Speaker 6: Here and ask for money from you.
Speaker 5: We don't want to hear it because it lives more white.
Speaker 6: But they matter to you. They fill your pockets.
Speaker 2: The baddest man on the block. Had a point. You're killing everybody.
Speaker 6: You're murderous. You should know that, too. The single mother became the mother. The young mother wasted or came down huge to make a point. That's a group of people that you.
Speaker 5: Need to help. Wayne Petersen again, another.
Speaker 3: Person you need to.
Speaker 6: Help.
Speaker 2: Stop ignoring. It's not going away. Systemic racism has to end.
Speaker 3: Greed has to end.
Speaker 6: Your fraudulent misappropriation of funds has to end. Period. New administration.
Speaker 5: We're going to do better.
Speaker 6: Once we reduce it, work together. The mayor needs to work with you. You need to work harder. Do for.
Speaker 3: The people which we hired.
Speaker 6: You to do. Work for the people. Not your pockets.
Speaker 2: You're all greedy. You misappropriate.
Speaker 5: Funds. You're lying. Your money. Fraudulent. All fraudulent.
Speaker 2: You know what we know?
Speaker 6: We're telling you, bitch. You do better. We know this group right here, minus the other two, cannot do this. If I have to place, I would shut this down. It's a no. Personally, no.
Speaker 5: I brought me.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Kate.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President, and members of the city council. I'm Kate Barton, a Denver resident and executive vice president of the Downtown Denver Partnership. We are here today in support of the expanding housing affordability policy. Over the last six months, we came together with members of Denver's local business, residential and Commercial Development Community to work with city staff and provide comments, insights and technical expertize on how this policy could help achieve the goal of producing affordable housing options in Denver, which is largely contingent on development and the actual supply of housing in our city. This policy strikes a good balance to achieve this goal. We, like our partners, are committed to building diverse housing options that serve all income levels to meet the overwhelming demand and need for housing in our city. We share a common goal the creation and use of sound market based tools that address all housing needs in all Denver neighborhoods. First and foremost, I'd like to thank the teams at CPD and host for the extensive stakeholder process. Listening to our feedback and responding to many of the comments about this policy as it's evolved. This is a large and complicated issue that requires many tools to achieve the goal of affordability. This policy is not a silver bullet, but is a step in. The is a good step that helps to address one of our city's most significant needs. We appreciate the phased approach, the linkage fee to linkage fee increases that is included in the final policy before you fee increases will be passed on to the end user no matter the asset class increase in commercial rents to businesses large and small. Thus, a phased approach helps to allow for the market to absorb and adapt to these significant changes. We also recognize the work to strengthen and offset incentive programs to support the ultimate outcomes of these policies and mitigate some of the burden and burden placed on the development community, including building fee waivers and the exemption of linkage fees for all grounds where square footage and mixed use developments were on site. Affordable housing is included. A central issue in our discussion with city staff has been the development review process in ensuring that regulations do not hinder housing supply. An important element of any policy is the ability to know whether it's working. We appreciate how the city team has created transparency in this policy implementation. We also appreciate the commitment to efficiency of development, review the public facing dashboard and continue conversations to ensure that develop the development review process is supportive of projects moving forward. To that end, the provision that enables CPD to come in front of the City Council with an opportunity to extend the grace period for projects to be grandfathered under existing requirements. Should the city fall behind? The review of SGV is a critically important component of ensuring that this policy works. While we support this policy, we have ongoing concerns with an inclusion housing policies and their overall impact on the cost of housing. We want to acknowledge this, not the silver bullet, and we urge City Council to look towards policies to help address the missing middle housing across the city through increased housing supply tools. In the end, we come to you collaboratively in this important endeavor to achieve the important goal of affordability in our city. And the downtown Denver Partnership continues to be supportive of many components of this policy. The creation of this policy has appropriately included feedback from stakeholders, and we thank you for your hard work and consideration.
Speaker 1: I think it's just really I was watching a baby and on a. I am in speaking and listen to this proposal as it does not represent my community and the linkage fee needs to be put towards making more affordable housing. The AMA needs to be lowered its common sense. I am here representing my community here. Young house community. I'm here because when I had to flee a violent domestic situation, I had nowhere to go. And they took me in. And for all of you who say yes to this proposal, you're saying to them they don't deserve housing. Now, I want to ask you, why do certain citizens in your city deserve housing more than others? Why do people who are suffering from dependency, from miscarriages, from their support systems failing them? Why can't they have housing? Why do they go to shelters where there's addiction and violence? We talked to people on the streets. We know what they go through a. These are citizens of Denver. And you playing Monopoly with them, making negotiations with multi-million dollar developers, whatever. Just like these are human beings, these percentage figures, no matter how you slice of the pie. Like when you vote yes and go to sleep tonight. That piece that you forgot. Who are most in need? You're saying just wait. We'll get to you in a linkage fees or trickle down and you know, enjoy the sheltered. But I just want to say like I hope you never have to have the misfortune of living on the streets. Of having to have all of no privacy, all of your weaknesses, all the things you need. Just out on display for everyone to see. For cops to come when you're just trying to survive. And to take your tent away. To take your blanket away. To suffer frostbite, to suffer severed limbs, weak hearts. Nobody wants to die in the street. You don't want to. Nobody wants to. Families don't want to. This is passed down. Generations. Jenner. Jenner. Relationally. Poverty, racism, violence, dependency is pattern. You're not only doing these people, you're doing their families. And I just don't understand how to watch most of your walk out when people from my community are trying to tell you their experiences . You expect them to respect you and respect this house of law when they're just trying to strive for their basic rights, their basic human rights to survive. And that was shameful. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is online.
Speaker 2: Shay shadi.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 5: So I guess that means I'm shady.
Speaker 2: I am not only a.
Speaker 5: Member of the human race, but I am here with House Keys, Action Network, Denver. And I like a lot what Riley said about being taken in by House Keys.
Speaker 2: Because when they found.
Speaker 5: Me, it was during their outreach team, which I now have the.
Speaker 2: Absolute.
Speaker 5: Pleasure of being a part of. And what I mean is. Why was it so hard? For someone like that to find me, I just reach you. I cannot tell you how much of a difference. This has made not only and obviously financially is not the most serious aspect as it's hard for them to.
Speaker 6: Almost.
Speaker 5: Solely provide for me in this manner. What I mean is the hope it has given me and I tend to quote scripture a lot. My faith is absolutely everything to me. And faith is the substance of things unseen of things that you only hope for. Because if a man already has what he hopes for, what does he have? And this hunger I have is the most wonderfully devastating thing. This time. Two years ago, I was much like you. My ex-husband took everything from me in the divorce. But that's okay, because now I have a peace that surpasses understanding and I am ready to rebuild. And as a registered Republican, I believe in small government. And perhaps this is God teaching me something I didn't understand before. I was very concerned about how do we pay for things like this? Well, the truth of the matter is, I don't mind when I reenter into society because I would never stop trying. I'm going to respond from the concrete as many times as it takes to fix this. I am so emotional. I hate to lose track, but what I mean is. I'm just overcome right now. What I mean is it takes opportunity to get out of this situation and some people don't want to get out of this situation, and I've seen it. That's their right to do so, isn't it? This is America. And what the one of the first speakers said about. Dominique. She said that.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 5: We believe in the system here. I believe in this House of law study law. I've absolutely got to get up off the street, get back into school so that I can afford to pay a little bit more. I wouldn't mind paying a little bit more taxes or whatever it takes to make this happen because. We are the future and if we build each other up, we're just going to do better. I absolutely oppose this of 50% and why it'll make something that's nearly impossible. Q Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. We'll go online to Aaron Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, the council members. It's good to see you this evening. My name is Aaron Clark. I'm a Denver native and I'm here to speak in favor of all of the combined packages or ordinances that you're looking at this evening with respect to the expanding housing affordability. I'm speaking tonight as a member of the.
Speaker 9: Expanding Housing Affordability Committee. I was a part of that committee.
Speaker 2: As a then current, now former member of the Denver Planning Board and also as a local affordable housing developer. Very much in support of this because. We need an all of the above approach to affordable housing in our city and in our region. I very much take to heart all that we have heard from many members of the local community looking for deeper affordability, really helping to house the unhoused. This is. What we're looking at this evening is one tool in a broader toolbox related to providing housing across the income spectrum, across the continuum of housing needs. And it is a meaningful way to bring market rate developers surely more meaningfully into the mix of how we how we really increase affordable housing supply. I focus on the word expanding versus affordable. Here it is. It is to increase the overall amount of affordable housing. It is to expand those who are part of that process. There are thousands of us across the state of Colorado who work to develop, produce, find land for affordable housing. Every day. And what we're hearing from our community, the cries of for the need for deep affordability really speaks to how far behind the behind the eight ball we are, how much.
Speaker 5: The need for housing.
Speaker 2: Is outpacing our ability to produce it. And for that reason, we need everyone possible to be providing to be part of the solution. And the market right now is does not have to be part of that solution. We do, at the end of the day, live in a private property system and a market based system. And so this is specific to those middle incomes that we also need to help help in the affordability so that we can focus our energies on the deeper affordability that many of us are working on on a daily basis. And that is not really where the market developers would be. This is because of the affordable housing state legislation, and Denver is really the only city that's moving forward with that. And you should be commended for doing so. So please support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Monica martinez.
Speaker 2: Hi there, Monica martinez. I'm a resident of Council District five. I'm also the executive director of the Facts Partnership, a nonprofit based on the East Coast Export War. I am a member of Mom Mothers Advocating for affordable housing that was founded by President Dana Crawford. I'm on the city's stimulus task force that is helping to inform the cities way to expend the ARPA dollars, the $305 million in ARPA dollars. Oh, I hope I didn't state the wrong amount. I think it's 305. Lastly, I was also the policy analyst for Hickenlooper, Mayor Hickenlooper's affordable housing plan way back in 2006. But guess what? Never got adopted. So I really want to commend you all for getting across the finish line or almost there. I know how hard it is to create citywide policy and satisfying multiple stakeholders. Community members that are in desperate need for housing is really a hard task. So I commend host team and CPD team for coming up with a policy that that will address the massive problem that we have of affordable housing. I know from our stimulus task force, we've heard from Denver residents the serious concern around the need for more affordable housing. Obviously, all policies could be improved upon, but I would commend and encourage you to pass this. I really like how you guys are using market based solutions. I think leveraging the market through providing height incentives, honoring housing over parking and then really those permit reductions really will help result in more predictable development processes for developers. We know that any time there's increased unpredictability to process results and increased cost, which in turn then impact the amount of housing we can build. So I would definitely encourage us. The other thing I would say I support is the the ability to create more mixed income communities. Really apologize. My my clock is going off.
Speaker 5: Lastly, I would offer.
Speaker 2: A question for you all to consider. I'm excited about the possibility of a concierge review, but I would encourage you all to revisit this and see what its effectiveness is. I worry. I do know that from the implementation and follow up.
Speaker 5: After the fact.
Speaker 2: Properties slipped through the cracks. And so I would really encourage a council to consider kind of a review of that implementation of the concierge. Lastly, I'll just applaud you for your work, and I just want to say I really support the passion of some of the speakers here tonight. But I think using language like murders has must.
Speaker 5: Be.
Speaker 2: Rejected in this era. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is in Chambers V Reeves.
Speaker 7: Hello.
Speaker 5: Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
Speaker 2: My name is Vee and I'm here to speak against this bill. And this is something that you've heard from a number of people today, from all different points of view.
Speaker 5: But overwhelmingly, this bill.
Speaker 2: We have to recognize the fact that it was created in favor of developers. We even heard today from someone supporting this bill.
Speaker 5: And they were from.
Speaker 2: The Denver business district. So to have a group, a business improvement district in support of this bill, which is called mandatory affordable housing, is a kind of expanding. Affordable housing is a kind of irony. Thank you for that for look, Sandoval. Appreciate that. But that's an important point that you made in the fact that literally when I said.
Speaker 5: That, because we also.
Speaker 2: Heard someone say they want to emphasize the idea of expanding.
Speaker 5: Over the idea of.
Speaker 2: Affordable. And that is really what's happening. So I think if we're going to have.
Speaker 5: A title.
Speaker 2: That's supposedly addressing this issue, supposedly suggesting that this is a way to create affordable housing, we just it's a lie.
Speaker 5: And it's inconsistent with the reality of it. We also heard from another stakeholder who was part of the process of creating this bill, who they themselves said felt it favored the developers.
Speaker 2: We're making a job for them a lot easier by allowing them to come into our city and to continue to develop and to continue to profit off of the people in a way that.
Speaker 5: Is still unbridled in comparison with other.
Speaker 2: Cities. And so for us to be introducing a concept.
Speaker 5: Like this with linkage.
Speaker 2: Fees and also with percentage armies of affordability, we really do need to consider the reality of what is happening there. We should also consider that.
Speaker 5: You know, you've heard from people saying that there is support for.
Speaker 2: 30% AMI. And that is not the case. We don't have new development of structures that are specifically for 30% or less. AMI And because of that, it is going to perpetuate this issue of house business that we're experiencing, one that's affecting everybody. One that is most.
Speaker 5: Importantly affecting the people who are in.
Speaker 2: The throes of it and experiencing it on the daily. So I just would like to reemphasize those points, reemphasize the fact that.
Speaker 5: So much of the support for this bill does come.
Speaker 2: From businesses, developers who are going to come in from out of state and really have a huge impact on our population here. And I hope that, you know, by seeing and hearing.
Speaker 5: The voices and the stories of the people who do believe in.
Speaker 2: You and who do believe that you have the power to consider what is happening.
Speaker 9: And act in a just.
Speaker 5: Manner. I hope that you will see it that way, too. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go back on the virtual platform. We've got Kate Stig Bergh.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Gilmore, and members of council for giving me the opportunity to speak with you tonight. My name is Kate Steinberg, and I'm the senior director of activism at Healthier Colorado. We're a statewide nonprofit organization that aims to ensure every Coloradan has a fair shot at living a healthy life. One of the focus areas in which we engage is social determinants of health, which is why in the past we've supported policies in Denver, such as raising the minimum wage, ensuring the passage of our rental licensure program, and fighting against the repeal of the Group Living Ordinance and why we prioritized House Bill 1117 that was referenced earlier this evening on behalf of the nearly 13,000 members in Denver. We urge you to vote yes on the Expanding Housing Affordability Ordinance, also known as the in your home is the foundation for your Health. And it's no secret that Denver's severe lack of affordable housing has forced economic hardship on many families, especially for people with low incomes , older adults and communities of color. In fact, Denver is now ranked the fifth least affordable housing market in the country. This rise in housing costs has been devastating to the cultural diversity and vitality of our neighborhoods. Too many families have been pushed out of the communities they've called home for decades or are unable to live where they work. These housing pressures create family insecurity, exacerbate economic anxiety and cause displacement. It's long past due that Denver requires affordable housing as part of new market rate developments and brings developers to the table as partners to help keep people in their communities. And with a roof over their heads and a December 2020 poll, 75% of Denver's Denver voters supported inclusionary zoning policies like the one the Denver City Council is considering tonight. We recognize the proposal is one critical piece in a much bigger puzzle and that while a critical step forward, it cannot solve Denver's affordable housing crisis alone. This market driven policy will not address all the city's housing challenges, including disproportionate lack of access to homeownership for Bipoc Denver, its record high market rate rents and mortgages and restrictive zoning policies that exclude affordable housing from a large portion of Denver neighborhoods and beneficial community resources. But what it will do is set a solid foundation for the creation of affordable housing for many Denver residents in perpetuity. Simply put, we need actual, tangible homes and we need them to be affordable. All new development in Denver moving forward will now have standard and basic requirements to contribute to increasing housing affordable options should this pass . I understand and respect the varying viewpoints of this proposal. Healthier Colorado supports us because at the end of the day, we know that housing instability is a significant contributor to poor health outcomes for loved ones and neighbors. Please support this policy and you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Move back into chambers. Robert Bailey.
Speaker 1: You know, this expanded policy is not business driven. It is city planning driven.
Speaker 4: So a lot of willingness on the whole thing. Thank you very.
Speaker 1: Much for having me. Appreciate it very much, Brad. You say that this bill does not apply to educational facilities. Why is this? Well, she said we want more educational facilities. So do I. We agree on that. On the other hand, I also want more places to sleep at night. Brad I guess that is where we differ. The so-called affordable housing program is a policy that, in effect, works to tear down the people who build things up. And at the same time, you are not receiving receiving even half of the rent reduction proclaimed. A lot of shell game going on. Let's talk about the differences between policy and development. Pouring concrete and building the place where we sleep at night. This is development. Everything else is policy. Our so-called affordable housing policies are not working. Voting yes today means to expand on that voting no. All that does is hits the pause button. Let's wait another year or two. Let's think about this. Let's search for some sun, some hope, some signs of success. Let's see if we can find some. Pouring concrete is going very well. I like to go stand next to those large construction sites. I just stand there in such an enormous project that is being executed so well, so precisely. And I just look at that and I say, now, this is human achievement, and you want to blame that achievement and you want to control that achievement. You are in the beginning steps of losing this achievement. You will never be able to plan out the place where we sleep at night better than the millions of people who work in the field.
Speaker 4: We should focus our efforts.
Speaker 1: On helping more people back into the market, not trying to become the market bit by bit. How do we do this? Money, money, money. We need more vouchers at the federal, state and local level, and we need to make it illegal to discriminate against these vouchers. We could do that next week if you wanted to.
Speaker 4: It would be easy and we could do that. And then the owners can.
Speaker 1: Complain about tenants, toilets and vouchers. That's fine.
Speaker 4: I have no problem with that. But you call.
Speaker 1: Expanding the housing affordability. I call nationalizing the building industry.
Speaker 4: One more step.
Speaker 1: You're trying to take one more step in that direction. I would recommend not doing that. One of the very best books I've ever read on organizational. And this is it. I don't know if you.
Speaker 4: Can read that is.
Speaker 1: Just don't do it. Just don't do it. One of the very best organizational books I ever read. It makes a great case for saying no today. A great case. Organizations have a tendency to just do something, do something, do something. A lot of times the best thing to do is just don't do it.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that very much.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is online, Darryl Watson.
Speaker 1: Council. President Gilmore and members of Council. Thank you for your service to city and county of Denver. My name is Darrell Watts, and I'm a 30 year resident of Denver's District nine. I speak tonight as the chair of the Housing Stability Strategic Advisors Board, the HSA, the board providing advice to the Department of Housing and Stability. Members of the HSA board engaged in almost two in this almost two year process, specific engagement through the official one and a half year community engagement process. We agree that more needs to be done at all levels. Brad winding from host and a lead talk from community planning and development provided presentations today to say board the board by consensus supported Denver City Council's adopting bill 2204 two for are the enhancing affordable housing initiative as an appropriate response to House Bill 1117 as it mandates the development of new affordable housing units. HSA rationale is as follows Each will work complementary with the spectrum of programs developed by host to confront the current housing crisis, specifically the housing opportunity, pillar and host five year plan. It does not remove the requirement for four host and service providers to find solutions for deeply affordable units. 30% or lower. The current linkage fee and center protocols do not provide a necessary affordable housing needed, specifically between 60 to 80% AMI. That would increase access to housing to community teachers and firefighters, to name a few. This process included almost two and a half years of discussions with members of the community throughout Denver, with the Expanding Housing Affordability Advisory Committee and with the SSA board and with members of the development community that would build this necessary housing. If adopted, will impact the lives of community members at work in our city but cannot afford to live in our city. Our current housing crisis requires action and requires deliberate action now. We need more housing. This plan takes immediate steps to create some of that necessary housing. It is only one new tool. There is more work to be done. Thank you, council members, for voting yes on this plan.
Speaker 3: Same thing.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is in person, Joe Davis.
Speaker 4: Three 2466 Being the 56 years I've been watching this struggle for a long time with my mom and my sisters. My grandma didn't get too involved because she was more independent upon herself. But the point being is this as we sit here and do this struggle, everybody's forgetting. The one most important thing is we are all equals. We all want. And the ones that think they're not got something to say to what won't be any of this. Once we all step up and see that we have one way to go, and that's only because we're all in this battle. It don't matter which way we go. And and as we get any and all this other stuff, as the relevant part does that the struggle is once is beating us, is beating us for the money to try and make money that you guys are asking for. And see, though, as we out here, I mean, 30 to 50 an hour a moment is $50 an hour. I can barely even make what you're asking. I can imagine something to do when they are struggling. And I'm ready. MAN 16 And you only getting $100 a day and you got to eat it. Then you just broke your ankle. I mean, you can. All this stuff adds up a lot faster than walking down the street, getting beat down, and the struggle is the heartbeat. And I didn't have something of the season in my life from heart attacks and stress and trying to accommodate what a lot of people up here are asking for. And the last of the living, 169 people. Joe Day was right here and quite a few of my family members suffered. Quite a few of my friends are still suffering, getting beat down for the little change that we got added to the $3.20 we don't get since the gunmen have shot me back that somebody owed me. Now I tell you like this. You talk to everybody. Everybody understand that you talk to everybody and everybody that thinks that they're a little higher. You know, you got to sit down in the conference room or the principal's office and. I hope that we come to a solution here real soon because of the facts that. If we don't put another foot down the US because we are all one. We are all in this struggle. If you ever had to step down that little bitty wage, then we need to understand what we are out here in the rain, snow, sleet, wind and humans that think they want what we got. And what do we have? Same thing. You know. Better land and you know, some materialistic stuff. And the money we struggle for. We break our backs trying to get it and then take 3000 hours to catch.
Speaker 0: The time we have allotted for each speaker. Thank you. We're going to go back virtually to Caitlyn Quander.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Caitlin Quander. I live and work in Denver and I'm speaking this evening on behalf of Knapp, Colorado. Colorado represents a diverse network of over 600 developers, owners, investors and various real estate professionals. First, I want to thank CPD and host staff for their intensive and nuanced work on the issue over the last year. Also, the advisory committee made up of voices across the city. They proactively engage with all points of view in the community during the process. Working to solve affordable housing is complex, and we hope that the city has struck the right balance to promote more affordable housing, but also not curtail development of the city, which would impact the many jobs in construction and also further exacerbate the lack of housing. One of these examples is the phasing in of the linkage fee. We appreciate this incorporation to allow the market time to adjust as the free fee increases annually. This doesn't mean that Colorado is in complete agreement with the approach and we do have continuing concerns about the impacts. But that's what compromise is about and we support the proposal before you this evening. Some will suggest that the ordinance doesn't go far enough. The goal of it was to establish a market based program, meaning without any public funding. This program complements other city programs that do address homelessness, homelessness and 0 to 30% AMI. It also provides more funding for the Affordable Housing Fund to build housing for that population. I want to reiterate that while development is active in Denver, it's at the top of the market. New projects are already becoming more difficult given the supply chain issues and construction costs. We remain concerned that increased linkage fees and increased requirements will be passed along to the other business and residential tenants in these projects. The proposal will likely make the scene metal housing and the ability for small business to lease space. A new retail development more expensive in Denver. We hope staff and City Council will seriously consider an amendment come spring 2023 that allows projects in the pipeline making pragmatic progress be allowed to continue until the rules that existed at the time they submitted the application. We have substantial concerns. ACP CPD staff is already working hard and busy and it will be difficult to keep up. We hope the city will continue to partner on innovative ideas, including further changes at the state level to incentivize even more affordable housing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Q Our next speaker is Anna DeWitt for. I spent a lot of winter and District ten. I understand that many of you have.
Speaker 2: Spent several years developing this plan. I appreciate your work, your time, your tears and your sweat on this.
Speaker 0: But before I can comment.
Speaker 2: On E.J., I want to tell you a story. Recently, I was teaching my five year old how to bake an apple pie. I don't know about you, but I love apple pies. But like most five year olds, my daughter wanted to add much more sugar than needed. And that's understandable. Sugar makes apple pie the sweetest.
Speaker 0: So we tend to focus on it. When I explained to her that sugar, while important, is only one part of baking a delicious apple pie. And this is how I view. With this, we're addressing an important part of expanding housing affordability. But we need other ingredients to truly make a difference in affordability. I'll give you an analogy. When we look at the prices of.
Speaker 2: New and used cars, we've seen a huge spike in prices. We know that this is because car manufacturers are struggling to make enough cars due to the shortage of electronic parts. But what if what if we as a city decided to make.
Speaker 0: Those greedy, unwilling car manufacturers who were out to hurt us? What if we made them sell.
Speaker 2: Each 10th car for half the price of their own while other nine cars would sell for a. Sorry. Hey, guys, I'm on a council meeting now. Sorry, I have several roommates anyway, so we won't see a spike in those other nine cars. In this case, a better solution would be to address the root cause of the castle prices. Not create a scapegoat. For me, this is similar to what we're deciding tonight. I do agree we need forced, affordable measures. But my concern with E.J. is that this forced measure will affect people purchasing new homes, meaning young people. We're not addressing the root cause, namely the fact that most of our city is owned by single family homeowners. The very people that have exasperated exhaust.
Speaker 0: Excuse me exacerbated the housing crisis have little to no.
Speaker 2: Responsibility in this plan. And that's my biggest concern.
Speaker 0: My hope.
Speaker 2: Is that when we pass the age, we also create a higher affordable housing tax for Denver residents.
Speaker 0: Who reside in large single.
Speaker 2: Family homes. It's not just up to young people buying small.
Speaker 0: Condos or townhomes. It is all of Denver's responsibility.
Speaker 2: My other hope is that when we pass, you change your bitter city of outdated zoning laws. If this council really wants to move the meter in regards to how high housing prices, we will work.
Speaker 0: Together to end restrictive.
Speaker 2: Exclusionary, single family zoning. I and this was saying I support DHEA, but I support DHEA. If this council will be.
Speaker 0: Bold enough to add the other ingredients.
Speaker 2: To make a delicious pie. Thank you. Think thinking.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Alfonso Espino.
Speaker 1: Hello. Good evening, everybody. It's now my pleasure to be here for what seems like an annual meeting of a celebration of what is essentially a kicking of the proverbial can down the road. Non solutions advocated as solutions. Language co-opted to vein for housing justice. It's not my pleasure to be here. So I'm not here to address council, which has become predictable in its capacity to vote for which way. But I am here to address some of the people that were speaking and some of the people that are watching, hopefully, and those that I know that are not because we are in direct contact with them in our communities organizing as we speak. To the housing developers and any developers that are opposed to it. Spare me or crocodile tears to those that are in favor. It shows me exactly why we should oppose it. To the so-called housing advocates who only co-opted the housing justice movement in favor of political power backed by institutions like BlackRock and the largest developers in the country, and some of the ones that are creating those portfolios that this new housing stock is going towards, right where this is all just retirement funds for the people that have been playing with us our whole lives. Most are here to address the people, the masses, the working class, to remind them and to remind myself for the public record and for those that will be studying history 30, 5000 years from now, who do not lay down and allow them to convince us that they brought forward solutions now . I'm here to remind them, to remind ourselves that our power lies nowhere near this chamber. It lies outside in the streets with our neighbors and our communities organizing among ourselves to take that power which will not be given to us to enact that change which will not take place here. It's more of the same. Not surprised. But I only came for the public record. Oh, and I'd like to offer one more correction to a gentleman that spoke about an hour ago before me stating that he somehow lived in a nonexistent rhino neighborhood, which, to my knowledge, does not exist. It's a special tax district. Please. Five points will still call. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That was near Miracle. And we have Erin with us. And so we're going to go ahead and go to our next speaker. Yolanda. Okay. All right. Doesn't look like Yolanda's with us. Thank you. Jonathan Piera is online virtually.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Counsel Johnson Pier, District three resident. I want to start by thanking CPD Counsel and partners for seeking solutions to Denver's affordability crisis. Both redirect subsidies for affordable home and shelter providers, as well as continue examination of policy solutions. As the capital city of a state short 175,000 homes today and projected to be short half a million homes by 2030. We have a long way to go to reach our goal of safe and stable housing for all. Regarding the rule, tonight's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will play in reaching that goal. We should consider that for decades, cities have been debating whether inclusionary zoning can close their severe housing gaps. As you've heard in this room tonight, experience tells us that there are things these ordinances do well, such as creating mixed income residences and things they do poorly, such as increasing metropolitan sprawl. They're politically popular, of course, because they're seen as an easy win. The ordinance doesn't inconvenience homeowners by asking them to contribute more to the problem, instead placing that cost only on new development, often renters. And because mixed income homes can only be built in a small fraction of city. We don't even ask those homeowners to change what their neighborhood looks like. One thing is clear, though. From Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine, inclusionary zoning is not nearly enough to solve the problem, whether implemented in small cities or large. Many residents in all of these places still find stable homes out of the reach. These cities still have residents living on the streets. These cities still have residents moving away because they can't afford to live in their home town any longer. Clearly, to whatever extent these programs may help some residents, they are not providing everything we need. So I'd like to focus on the future. Once this ordinance passes tonight, you'll have finished the politically easy part. Next, we need you to show courage by doing what is politically hard in cities around the world. You, too, are doing a much better job of housing their residents. They are pushing policy that is far more effective but hard. These include eliminating costly parking mandates citywide, improving tenant protections, lowering barriers to neighborhood scale housing forms, subsidizing mixed income housing, simplifying rules, and speeding up permitting processes. Another important path is easing restrictions on how homes are used. One which you began to walk last year as you expanded access to living. There are even small building code changes that help, like preventing single start buildings. Weird things. Small things. I ask that you don't wait to see results before pursuing additional proven tools needed to house rights of all stripes. Please do not consider this mission accomplished. Let's move past this political hurdle and get back to working on real long term solutions quickly to produce more affordable homes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Bill Zeigler. It doesn't. It doesn't. Bill with us. So, Tim Kraft.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam President, and members of council. My name is Tim Kraft, a long time Denver resident, and I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metro Denver, where I serve as the chair of our Government Affairs Committee. Our association and member submitted a letter to City and Denver excuse me, in December of 2021, and we greatly appreciate staff keeping us involved along the way. Ever since, our input has largely been focused on the underlying issue driving the need for this affordable housing measure. The fact that creation of housing has not kept up with the creation of households. While the steps proposed in the affordable measure before you now are great in that they help to improve equity. It does not do enough to help the underlying, if you will, that we don't have enough rooftops. The families that currently want to. This can only be solved by making it easier to build more homes. While great and meaningful incentives have been provided for traditional multifamily projects with house incentives, incentives attached and for sale product has to some degree been left by the wayside. Additional measures can be achieved to help the addition of housing through the creation or the allowance of smaller lot sizes, fee reductions and expedited review time. We also encourage the city to reinstitute the residential infill task force with the drive to increase supply by expediting approvals and increasing the use by rate approval process. We also want to remind the city that the state's construction defect litigation still makes it difficult and extremely risky to build vertical for sale multi-family housing. Moving forward, we ask the city to honor commitments made to the applicants who have projects in the pipeline submitted as IDPs before the applicable deadline of June 30th, and to honor the 14 month timeline previously discussed by several of the speakers. We hope the city is able to honor those projects. The construction industry and the city's goals are aligned in that we both want to deliver more homes to help alleviate the cost burdens currently burdening residents of debt and incentives to help achieve that we greatly support. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and we appreciate all the hard work by city staff. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Rich McClintock. And it doesn't look like we have Rich with us. And so we'll go ahead and move to Renee Martinez Stone.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 3: My name is Rene Marsh.
Speaker 2: Penistone, and I am a Denver resident and employee of the Denver Housing Authority. I'm speaking tonight in support of expanding housing affordability. And I want to thank CPD and House for their innovative leadership on this effort. It's an impressive start to what I believe will help to bring many more bold and equitable housing solutions. In West Denver, 83% of households are currently vulnerable to gentrification and thousands of families. Almost 9000 have been displaced since 2015. One in two households have an additional person or family living with them. They're keeping residents from being homeless. They're doubled up and in need of more housing. I've been tonight I'd like to speak specifically to a proposed amendment tonight and describe why we need to keep it use it. It is accessory blowing units exempt from the future linkage to historically. We have seen use be built by developers and investors.
Speaker 6: Mostly.
Speaker 2: Because the complex the technical expertize they need and the financial flexibility needed to absorb the added costs and requirements that come with a use currently. The pilot program created at the Denver Housing Authority with Habitat and the city is changing. Who builds radios? We help residents navigate the process of building a road in their backyard. And this is an affordably restricted, though.
Speaker 3: In 2021.
Speaker 2: When 82 permits were down significantly citywide. 10% of those permits were for homeowners in our program, not affluent homeowners, not traditional developers, 100% of them below one 20%. And like 50% of them, below 80% am I. And even some below 60% in my 83%.
Speaker 6: Of those.
Speaker 2: Building ratings were persons of color.
Speaker 3: 25% were female.
Speaker 0: Heads of.
Speaker 2: Household, and 100% want to stay in place and providing affordable housing or changing the neighborhood. These are homeowners who want to help, and they're willing to invest their own financial resources in affordable housing.
Speaker 0: And they need to.
Speaker 2: Expand their living space.
Speaker 0: But they cannot be.
Speaker 2: A part of the solution without our support. I hope Council will approve this work tonight and will not approve the current amendment amendment to remove the linkage fee exemption. This is working backwards in terms of.
Speaker 6: Equitable.
Speaker 2: Opportunity for all and.
Speaker 0: Would create.
Speaker 2: An additional obstacle for homeowners adding affordable homes.
Speaker 3: In single.
Speaker 2: Families own neighborhoods, something we've heard many times tonight. Thank you for your time. Let's move to.
Speaker 0: Portland. Our next speaker is Lauren Hanson.
Speaker 1: So my name is learning and I am a resident of District ten and a resident of North Cap Hill. I would just like to keep my remarks brief and speak in favor of the three ordinances that we have in front of us right now. I also do want to actually touch on one of the comments some of the earlier speakers made. And personally, I think that we need to go a little bit further when it comes to reducing parking, particularly in places like where I live in northern Capitol Hill, where my apartment is situated on the crest of a large parking lot crater that is underutilized about about 70% of the time. My biggest thing in regards to that is we did have a speaker earlier that also spoke to the issue and useful source of concrete. I think one of the most useless pieces of concrete in the city is an underutilized parking space that can also be used to build more affordable and more housing overall. Thank you all for letting me speak and have read it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ryan Keeney.
Speaker 1: Greetings, Council members. My name is Ryan Keeney and I live in Council District ten. I'm board president of Yimby Denver and also serve on the board of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. I was a member of the city's Expanding Housing Affordability Advisory Committee, which helped craft the package before you today. I am in support of the proposal as written before this Council meeting. It will create more attainable housing for people who are currently rent burdened or unable to buy a home in Denver. It will accomplish this through a variety of methods that leverage private development to build up affordable units without being so burdensome that homebuilders are unable to build anything at all. However, in the big picture, this proposal plays a game of financial musical chairs. Despite the development incentives, this proposal will likely on average increase the price of new market rate housing in order to fund a relatively small number of new homes at below market rate. It is unlikely to significantly increase the total amount of housing construction and the number of new affordable units will be grossly insufficient to meet our severe deficit. We need to empower the market to build as many homes as possible in order to maximize the effectiveness of city tools such as single unit detached houses. On large lots are still the only types of homes allowed on most of the city's layered land, which is now incredibly expensive, even in the form of a vacant lot. This means that it is effectively illegal to add to our housing supply in most of the city, and most of the city's geographic area will not directly contribute a single affordable units under this proposal. We must legalize housing abundance in the form of 80 youth and multi-unit buildings in every neighborhood in order to truly meet the challenge of the affordability crisis we are facing today. Only an abundance of housing can solve a housing crisis. The expanding housing affordability package takes small strides towards this vision, but is held short by the limitations of its approach. I urge Council to pass this bill today and to follow the lead of progressive localities like Portland, Oregon and Minneapolis, Minnesota, to pass a residential infill residential infill ordinance tomorrow. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You are net speakers John Duff and Bob.
Speaker 1: Focus on the community. I'm John Davenport, project director for Rhino Art District Rhino Districts. Thanks to teams of CPD and host for the comprehensive consultation process and commends.
Speaker 10: The city for taking.
Speaker 1: This step towards a more affordable future. This policy won't solve all the issues Denver is experiencing. But in a year when the city's been the fifth least affordable real estate market in the country ahead of New York City, this is a step forward. The 30th and Blake incentive overlay, which many constituents were involved in the creation of, was a pilot program, and a number of lessons were learned from that. These included the need for deeper affordability and for more consistent and predictable program. We're excited to see these lessons included in the city wide VHA policy. We also appreciate the way in which the 38 completed zoning heights have been considered and integrated within the policy before the change in state law. Height incentives were one of few ways to encourage affordable housing when the incentive overlay was created. Therefore, the difference between the base and incentive height was maximized to increase the likelihood of affordable housing outcomes. Now, with the ability to require affordable housing, a low base height is no longer necessary to create affordable units. Indeed, keeping the base height low would severely restrict the city's ability to focus growth near transit services and amenities and to maintain consistency with the to small area and city wide plans. However, the most notable way is that it would stifle the ability of the 38 complaint area to create more affordable units through linkage fees. We welcome the policy and the city's approach to integrate the 38 complaints overlay within the policy to deliver a city wide consistency and to maximize affordable housing outcomes. This was thoroughly consulted on and the city's community engagement process and we look forward to the 38 and Blake area contributing to the creation of Denver's future affordable housing needs. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, the next to Heather Lafferty and then James Warren. Then it. They were supposed to join us virtually. And it doesn't look like we have them on with us. And so that concludes our speakers this evening. I'd like to thank all of our speakers, and we're going to then move into questions from members of Council on Bills 22 Dashboard two, four, four, two, five and 426. And we'll start out with Councilman Leach.
Speaker 2: Thank you as well to all of the speakers. It's a long, late night and we really appreciate you being here. A lot of important questions were raised by our speakers and there are some answers. And so I'm going to ask some questions. One of the things about this bill is it's not one bill or strategy. There's like four or five different pieces of it. So I'm going to ask some questions about the lowest income folks that relate to each of those pieces. So the first question I wanted to ask is, Britta, if you could please come up. So one of the things this bill does is it generates revenue for something called our Affordable Housing Fund. We've talked about the linkage fee, but the linkage fee goes into something called the Affordable Housing Fund. Can you describe how that fund particularly impacts or assists those either below 30% of your immediate income or exiting homelessness?
Speaker 0: Thanks for that question.
Speaker 2: Council on a.
Speaker 0: Couple of key things about the.
Speaker 2: Affordable housing fund and homelessness. It helps us provide a deep subsidy, which is really needed in order to reach the rent.
Speaker 0: Levels for a person exiting homelessness. And so that is really helpful.
Speaker 2: Grant dollars, low interest loan dollars that.
Speaker 0: Help us do that. The second component that is an eligible use from this fund is services dollars. So services that help go alongside housing to support someone exiting homelessness as well.
Speaker 2: In since its inception between 2017 and 2021.
Speaker 0: Approximately 12% of the.
Speaker 2: Affordable Housing Fund, or about $15.7 million directly supported programs.
Speaker 0: In housing developments that serve people experiencing homelessness.
Speaker 2: During that same time period, another 18% of the Affordable Housing.
Speaker 0: Fund, or about 23.6 million.
Speaker 2: Has supported the AA delivers.
Speaker 0: For Denver or D3.
Speaker 2: Agreement, which will produce more than 2500 units in partnership with the Denver Housing Authority and other developers, including around half of those units that will including around half that serve people experiencing homelessness or earning below 30% AMI. So just to be clear, this bill will generate funding that will build housing below 30% of area median income. Yes. Thank you. Second part of this bill, the part that I think a lot of the speakers were talking about, is the residential development requirements on a lease. I have a question for you if you want to start heading up. So so requiring developers to include some some affordable homes. Did did you all did the studies look at doing 30% of area median income housing as part of those requirements? And what did they find?
Speaker 0: Yes, we absolutely did look at an entire range of incomes acknowledging that that the spectrum of need is great. When we evaluated what a market based program could support a 30% am-I, it was around 2 to 3% and so really less than 5%. And so we had to have a trade offs conversation of do we want to be getting on up to 120% and we could have produced more units or do we go down to 30? And that's really by having a community conversation and doing the feasibility. We came to a balanced need of acknowledging where this program could be successful but also still target incomes where there was a significantly greater need. So to summarize your quick response, we did look at 30% AMI 40%, 50%. They were just at substantially lower numbers. That being said, the negotiated alternatives allows for hosts to bring dollars to those programs and we can buy down affordability. So it's not off the table. It's just not something that that is spelled out explicitly.
Speaker 2: Great. I'll get there in just a second. But first, Brenda, and if you just want to stay closed, sorry, I'm bouncing back and forth between you. But so Britta, we had a really powerful speaker earlier today. I just want to be sure I say her name right. Kerry Washington shared a really powerful story about her voucher experience. And I wanted to ask you, who are we use who who's using vouchers in Denver? And what is the biggest challenge that they face from what you all are hearing? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I was grateful for that testimony, as well as some others who mentioned vouchers and vouchers. We are.
Speaker 2: Fortunate that this council did pass already legislation that makes source of income protected here in the city and county of Denver, which means that someone who has a landlord cannot discriminate against a.
Speaker 0: Tenant because the source of.
Speaker 2: How they're paying their rent is about. And that is really important. But it doesn't solve some of our other issues. And utilizing a voucher, there are.
Speaker 0: Two key ones that I'll focus on.
Speaker 2: There's several, but one is the availability of housing stock. There is just really not many apartments to be found to take those vouchers that are at the right price point because you still have to deal with the fair market rent. And right now, that restricts the pool, right? If you can only go up to.
Speaker 0: 100% of the fair.
Speaker 2: Market rent, then all those units above it aren't accessible to be used with that voucher because the voucher covers.
Speaker 0: The distance between what a person can afford to pay with 30% of their income and.
Speaker 2: That market rent. So it means that when the HUD calculates that there's league and all of that and it means that there are many people that cannot find in that further restricted pool of housing stock and in Denver, a place to use it. That is one of the beauties of this policy, is that by creating more affordable units, even if they are restricted at an 80% or less level or 60% or less level, someone could use their individual tenant based voucher as well to help make up that distance and.
Speaker 0: Be in an affordable home. It increases.
Speaker 2: The pool of.
Speaker 0: Stock that we have.
Speaker 2: For people utilizing vouchers. So let me just make sure I get it right. Every single unit created at 60, 70 or 80% of am-I would be available and within the rents for a voucher holder, meaning they could pay as much as, you know, a third of their income no matter what that is. If they earned 10% of my 20%, if they were leaving homelessness. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. So the next question, Brad, you're on deck. So we talked about the developer requirements, which are a formula, but the formula doesn't apply to every single project. There are some projects that are large, more than five acres. Maybe they're getting subsidies from the city. They don't go under the formula. So can you talk to me a little bit about how those projects are treated under this policy?
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you for the question, Councilwoman. So those are, under this policy considered what we've defined as high impact developments, meaning the definition that you talked about, either the scale of it, just raw acreage or the utilization of tax increment financing or metro district financing. And those projects have to go through kind of an added community engagement process to ensure that what they are proposing, what they're negotiating with our department and the city is is responsive to the needs identified as part of that process. And so that typically will end up being is more responsive and a little bit less reflective of the citywide policy because of the need, because of the impact that those developments have. And so there are examples of in recent history, like the Navajo Market or like the red lights or River Mile, where we had large negotiated agreements with large developments that included a variety of affordable housing options, including several rental units below 30% ami restricted for sale options as well, and a mix in between. And the idea is that those typical developments are those atypical developments of that scale are more demanding of a of a more localized, more nuanced and more kind of context sensitive approach.
Speaker 2: So just to say back what I heard from you, which is that this policy provides for negotiated agreements in large developments, and those developments have included 30% of my housing in recent history.
Speaker 10: Just to answer your.
Speaker 2: Last strategy that we didn't talk a lot about during the testimony, but this policy includes incentives. Actually, one speaker talked about it it. And so we have affordable developers building housing for those exiting homelessness. We have those building supportive housing. And so what specifically is this policy providing that will increase housing for those exiting homelessness are 30% of AMI in some areas of the city.
Speaker 10: Sure. Thank you again for the question. So similar to Ethan for more and village just spoke to this exactly where the incentives are available to those developments. You are agreeing to provide units on site and especially the enhanced level of affordability yet to avail themselves of incentives like additional height which allows for additional units by right. Not having to go through a rezoning process to get there, the elimination or address the reduction in the parking required, which one eliminates a tremendous cost to that development to build that parking, especially even if it's in a structure, but also the square foot is it's not being utilized for parking can be utilized to provide more housing . Right. And so I think that the example that the gentleman from Warren Village mentioned was that the project they're working on at 30% AMI and below was targeted for 73 units because that's where they could fit in the box if they were allowed the new box that the spaces would allow them to build 89 units. That's a pretty substantial increase, and it's one example of what we hope will be consistent across the board, particularly for the providers of of housing, for almost all of them.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, council president. Those are my questions. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Kenny. Next up, we've got Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Brad, I have a few questions for you as well, starting first with you and then I have one for Annaliese. So when you mentioned the 400 square feet, you mentioned above 400 square feet. Is that accurate for those that are exempt or was it below 400 square feet for someone adding onto an existing property?
Speaker 10: Yes, that's specific to additions to existing homes and additions under 400 square feet are exempt from paying them.
Speaker 3: Because when you spoke, you said above and I just wanted to.
Speaker 10: Oh, if I do, I am mistaken and I apologize. Thank you.
Speaker 2: For calling.
Speaker 3: Let's see. I have another one for you. So you just talked about the high impact developments. What is the policy around those projects requiring the affordable units to be built on site as opposed to allowing them to go build off site? Shouldn't there be different expectations where there are public subsidy dollars in a project to require more integrated communities with mixed incomes, as opposed to allowing people to do the buy out or go build their units off site?
Speaker 10: So I think it's important first to start with again, the House bill that enabled us to have this policy in the first place, which legally requires us to provide options, alternatives to providing units on site. That said, yes, if we are putting dollars into developments as a city, the expectation ought to be that the outcomes within that development are better or at least more responsive to the community needs than, say, city wide standard policy. And so our expectation of apartment will be to push forward as much as we can affordable housing on site, but there are options available to them to negotiate. If they have a parcel of land that they want to contribute. That would be a ideal for the creation of a deeply affordable, permanent, supportive housing development in a location that's near services or in a community that needs it greatly. We are open to that kind of alternative. But the but the threshold is high. And we expect, again, first and foremost, that it's responsive to the feedback that these developers receive from communities.
Speaker 3: So I think part of what's critical to this conversation is making sure that we don't create communities like what we saw happen with Lowry and with Stapleton, where the affordable housing that's on site were. Only because we created specific provisions that allowed that housing to exist in. And so I think, you know, ensuring that we do have blended communities is part of what has always made Denver a great city in terms of mixes of various incomes across this city. And we're, you know, at a point where we have priced many, many people out of our city. So I just wanted to say that. Let me go on to my question for in always the lower parking ratio. Can you tell me if any of the conversation around that involve conversations with lenders and do any of the provisions call for no parking in any of the developments?
Speaker 0: So to your first question, did it include conversations with lenders? Yes, they are an important piece of the conversation. And I think what we see is lenders tend to look back in time and so they tend to be more conservative. They say. What did the last four developments provide? Oh, they were at a 0.75. That's what we should provide, even though they didn't acknowledge that. Scooters and e-bikes and all the various transit investments have changed the mobility option. So I think that lenders will continue to be conservative, but we are seeing systems change and and I think that will vary. And whether it's affordable housing lenders like Charter or more informal lenders to market rates. In terms of your question around the parking exemption, this bill does introduce a new parking exemption that does not currently exist in the code. As a reminder, currently in the code, all of our downtown core, this area that we're here does not have a parking minimum. I think we've noticed that every new development that has gone up has multiple podiums of parking. So parking minimum enables for the opportunity for developers to choose units over parking spaces. But what that does is it restricts the parking exemption into particular zoned districts. So multi-unit and mixed use districts, as well as those that are also located within a quarter mile of a fixed transit station. And in the future, our high and medium capacity transit corridors like Colfax and Federal as BRT comes online, those projects that are providing an enhanced level of affordability, meaning more affordable units on site, can take advantage of not providing vehicle parking.
Speaker 3: So speaking to parking minimums, the 38th Street and 42nd and in Fox area, I see this in a very similar light. You've got the 38th Avenue underpass as a major entry point for this area. And I'm wondering if any of the conversations that looked at increasing the density in that area talked at all about the infrastructure and the fact that that is very similar to the 38 by 25 Fox in Park Avenue interchange, where that is the only entry point into the site right now until a developer may build a new bridge over the railroad tracks, which then increases the opportunity to increase the parking minimums for the area. So can you just speak to whether or not that was part of the bigger conversation?
Speaker 0: Simply put, yes. Blueprint Denver is a land use and transportation plan, meaning that we do not singularly look at land use decisions of where we should be directing jobs and housing growth separate from the infrastructure needed to safely and sustainably be able to support that. We've had continued conversations with our partners and dotted around the 41st and Fox station, which is why there are rules and regs that govern the area and the development. Acknowledging that the further connections of mobility of various modes need to occur to accommodate that development capacity. And similarly to we've continued conversations on the 38th complaint area. Just because you have zoning entitlement for something does not mean that carte blanche you can develop it. We have a very thorough development review process that includes over 38 various agencies to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare is executed with every development. And so it's really just important to note that that we look at it at a holistic scale, and this plan is implementing that holistic scale, but also it's looking at the site specific scale at the time of settlement plan.
Speaker 3: So in the review that is done at CPD, has any of that looked at an infrastructure improvement district that asks all the developers to participate in offsetting the costs that. Otherwise the taxpayers would be asked to offset. So, for example, if the 38th Avenue underpass is not part of that bigger conversation that they're all being asked to participate in, it should not be left to one particular project to bear that cost. Is that something at least being talked about or thought of in the process? And if you can answer that, maybe maybe Laura can address that.
Speaker 0: I know at the 41st and Fox station area, that was something that was under consideration. I don't believe a formal proposal has advanced or gone through. I'm not aware of one specific 238 and Blake, that would be an improvement district. But if any of the staff do have answer, I've not heard of that being proposed, but I really think it would be for our partners and Dottie that something like that would be brought forth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think with some of these areas where we know we're going to be seeing lots of development, being able to look at the infrastructure. And I know we've talked about this along the Federal Boulevard corridor as well, Laura, but in this area, that 38th and that 38th Avenue underpass that is right at that Blake Street Station is it's a bottleneck today. So as we add more traffic, that has to be addressed as part of how we look at the area more holistically. So can you tell me just looking at an infrastructure improvement district that all developers might participate in is something that you all have explored.
Speaker 6: Thank you for the question, Councilwoman. We are in conversation with Dottie to begin.
Speaker 0: Looking at what that might look like. I think we're too early in the process to be able to definitively say that we've got an answer or a concept that we're moving forward with. But if I guess.
Speaker 3: I guess I'm looking at the concept not necessarily solely at this area, but sort of more broad in in areas where we know a lot of development is being proposed.
Speaker 0: Sure. Fair question. I think we are looking at the applicability specific to Fox Park because it's very apparent just the constrained infrastructure. I think it's a great opportunity to expand.
Speaker 6: Once we've got an understanding of how how it might work at Fox Park, then how to take that much more broadly. Certainly to your point, and as you pointed out to us numerous.
Speaker 1: Times, are in a number of places.
Speaker 0: Around the city that could benefit from from a.
Speaker 1: Concept like that. So we're.
Speaker 0: Looking into.
Speaker 3: It with Dottie. So since you're up there, I'm going to bring up the other issue. We always talk about life, safety and welfare when we're doing development projects. And I notice with the 38th and Blake area, some of the sites abut the railroad tracks. And I just want to know if any of the conversation that looked at that area address some of the things we've been talking about related to the railroad safety work that is going on now that will ask developers to address the life safety issues as part of their development.
Speaker 6: Yeah, thank you for the question. It is my.
Speaker 0: Understanding that conversation and the research that was completed by community planning and development was prior to my position being here as executive director. My understanding is that.
Speaker 6: My as CPD worked to identify how.
Speaker 0: That might be, how we might engage with the development community, and what kind of regulations we have in place today, which are very limited in terms of requiring a developer to address that safety concern. I believe what we did is through our site development plan process is ensure that every developer was made aware of the safety concern and the potential for them to encouragement for them to think about that as a part of their development.
Speaker 6: I understand with this consultant.
Speaker 0: Who is now currently underway, we will be looking at how do we enact regulation that will bring that safety much more into. Yeah, so it's.
Speaker 3: Really more focused on identifying our vulnerable areas along the rail corridors where development may occur that would ensure that we are in fact addressing the life safety issues and we'll provide some guidance on how we address that. So I appreciate the conversation and the fact that we're we're not there yet on all of that. But collectively as a city, it is an issue that we have not been addressing. Because we made this a voluntary process. And so the work that we're doing will, in fact ensure that we have the ability to ask the developers to address the life safety issues by the sheer fact that we're giving them the permit to go build their project as they're proposing. And this is just asking them to look at it in a little bit different way. It's not to stop development, but to do it in a different way that in fact addresses those life safety issues. So thank you. I think I've got one last question. And this is around whether or not the process and the conversation around bringing that forward made any distinction on housing type. So for example, there are a number of affordable housing manufacturers around our state as governor just, you know, announced he's going to fund one up in Grand Junction. There's one in one vista, there's one down in Pueblo. There's discussions about doing one somewhere, you know, in the front range. And the hope is that that type of housing can be done faster, cheaper. And if that can bring online housing in Denver quicker and more affordable, then is there are there any restrictions? And I get that they have to go through the whole building department assessment, making sure that there and you actually meet the building code, fire code, all of our, you know, UBC. But are there was that part of the conversation and are there any restrictions on that?
Speaker 0: Thank you for the question. So, of course, part of the conversation is how do we deliver homes faster? Which is why many of the incentives we're looking at, the opportunity, modular home or prefabricated home is certainly something that we're seeing as a growing trend to better address some of the supply issues. From a zoning perspective, we do not treat those types of homes any differently. I will note that that sometimes those homes don't always fit our building envelopes. And so what we sometimes see is someone said, Oh, I have a modular home, I want to build it in Denver. And they don't do the homework to understand that our zoning might require, you know, a book plane or a setback or whatever else. So just like any building might need modification, that is a challenge that we continue to work through and find solutions with so we can advance on affordable housing. And then as it pertains to the building code, our building code is constantly evolving and changing. We're currently undergoing an update. So, so long as those are meeting the building code, there's no limits on those opportunities. More quickly, deliver affordable housing.
Speaker 3: And I've got one last question and this is for you, Brad. So as we look to the development community, which is, in my opinion, different from our nonprofit housing developers to now contribute and participate in providing affordable units in our city. Is it anticipated that when we're asking them to do affordable units, that they're encouraged to apply for low income tax credits, to maybe get that subsidy deeper or expand the number of units are able to provide on their development.
Speaker 10: Thank you for the question. So the short answer is no. This is designed around what a market development can feasibly achieve on site without the need for subsidy, which is critically important. That said, I think our department and the city ought to and are willing to invest additional resources if it's important to say, increase the number of units available or buy down the affordability of issues that are created. We're not opposed to doing that, but across the board, we want to make sure that these options available are ones that can be replicable and included without the need for for the city to putting additional dollars. And so.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President. I have a question about linkage fee and the the thought process that went from that first iteration that we and council saw. And the current iteration, I guess, on a lease, I don't know, I'm you guys are looking at each other. So I guess between the two I bet you have the answer. And so as one example, this proposal shows four steps in the linkage fee increase as opposed to I think the first one that I saw only had three steps. Could you could you talk a little bit, I guess, to help guide that I don't want to lead you too much, but to help guide the the thought process. I think that the first iteration was probably not hard, not strong enough. And and so I think the first proposal then we had a second proposal, but that that had higher linkage fees. And then the third proposal or third iteration, we actually had a fourth step. So I can can you help me? Maybe I'm just making all this up. So that's why you're here to set the record straight.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you, Councilman, and good memory. This process has been evolutionary and responsive to community and stakeholder feedback. The first proposal was released in the fall of last year, and that included just a one time jump up to fees that were lower. And we certainly acknowledge that COVID is continuing to impact many facets of our lives, development being one of those. And then in the next iteration, we then said, let's phase us in over three years. But then we said, Well, we're on phasing it in over three years, but we're also keeping the fees on kind of a more modest side. At that point, we did increase the the linkage fee up to increase it by a dollar. So for larger single unit homes and that was a direct concern that we heard from community of our scrapes and rebuilds, of the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing and the replacement of of highly unattainable housing. Then kind of in that next iteration, we we acknowledge that there was still room for our linkage fee numbers to grow. However, kind of as a compromise. What we did is we increased that growth rate over four years, providing predictability, but in the long term, increasing those fees to a higher amount. So once we kind of go to that CPI, you adjustment will be at a really kind of healthy pace when we look at. Comparison appears as well as what we know the market can be able to bear, helping to ensure that we're maintaining a critical source of funding that's complementary to other things, such as the marijuana sales tax and the property tax all homeowners are paying and contributing to as well.
Speaker 1: He thinks. So that was that was what I was looking for. So I seem to recall that when there were three steps, we we looked at pier cities and the linkage fee amount was still below. Um, what we saw was the right amount or the, you know, the amount of linkage fees that people were charging just as we looked at peer cities. Is that right?
Speaker 0: Um, so generally speaking, peer cities range the whole gamut. So peer cities linkages range from 250, a square foot all the way up to 1750. However, there's a lot of important nuanced differences. Some of those districts with 1750, it only applies to the incentive, not to the entirety of the building. Some of them only apply to their central business districts and not the remainder of the city. Others, like Boston, Massachusetts, have had linkage fees on the books for decades, and so it's allowed for them to gradually increase over time, allowing for the market to absorb it. So when we do compare our proposed numbers, which also are a range based off of use and where it's located within the city, it is much more of that middle range of where we look at our peers, where previously we are well below every single peer in the country.
Speaker 1: Okay. I want to thank you for I know that you and I, when we had one of the briefings, I did express concern about how we should get a little higher with linkage fees. So I want to thank you for for I'm sure I wasn't the only one. So but I can pretend like I feel like you listened to me specifically. So thank you for that. Um, the, the other thing, the only other thing that I wanted to touch on was about parking ratios. Um, I want to thank you and Director Aldridge and, and my peers here on council for eliminating parking minimums, you mentioned . There are no parking minimums downtown as of July 19th of last year. There are no parking minimums in Golden Triangle either. So the question for you is, while this microphone works, um, does the eliminating. This is a leading question. Does the elimination of parking minimums mean that we will have no parking spaces in any new Golden Triangle development?
Speaker 0: We have not seen that trend to occur as of yet. But if you travel only to.
Speaker 1: Fair enough and I think where I'm going with this is the there were the questions a few minutes ago in comments and in in the many tests, the people testifying about how we could eliminate parking minimums. But banks still have parking minimums, as you were saying. They look back and they say, you know, this development had parking. And so they followed the trail us and and and how we want to move forward with land use in our city that a fair statement.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think lenders are looking at lending risk and the marketability of those units. And we as a city have to look at this from a policy perspective of implementing our adopted plans, which call for a multimodal, sustainable, interconnected transit network that reduces single occupancy vehicle and individual ownership needs. So we might not see these policies play out in the sense that we might not see significant reductions in vehicle parking for the next couple of years. And that's okay because we are still at least eliminating a barrier and providing the opportunity for those affordable projects to take advantage of lower parking ratios and like the Warren Village example, provide a lower parking ratio, provide a fourth floor, and provide more housing for individuals and families exiting homelessness.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'll just repeat and this the last, my last comment, I would just repeat something that I mentioned in committee. I would be in favor of installing parking maximums if I felt that the the banks would support it. But I don't want to go down the path of installing parking maximums and then destroy any development in our city because because we couldn't get funding for them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thanks. Just wanted to follow up on one thing we haven't kind of touched on yet, though. We heard a number of people comment on in public comment, and that is the idea of that of the fact that housing affordability is is lessening in our city because of the number of scrapes that are happening. Right. So one of the ways that CPD had discussed potentially alleviating that problem or addressing and incentivizing adaptive reuse was the what's the name of the project? I can't remember it now where we have one house and it gets split into three or four different units, but the house stays the same.
Speaker 0: I don't know if there is a fancy name for it, but I think you keep the existing building form, but you allow greater density. There was a whole project name for it that.
Speaker 2: I can't remember because I'm on like our 17.
Speaker 0: Of my day at this.
Speaker 2: Point and I'm afraid. You guys, if you remember it, let me know, please. Thank you. So we have abandoned that project and or set it aside for now in favor of some other priorities. So wanted to know how this proposal will address the problem of scrapes and and incentivize adaptive reuse. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And were you thinking of residential infill? Yes.
Speaker 5: Thank you. The residential.
Speaker 7: Development.
Speaker 0: Policy went to that level of specificity because I think we acknowledge that we needed to look at whether it was adaptive reuse or allowing.
Speaker 2: As part of the East Area plan. That was part of the proposal.
Speaker 0: Initially, also in the discussions. Yes, I totally get that day. And so I think that this this project and specifically the linkage fee is where we kind of broke the current use category, which said we're going to charge a new 800 square foot home, which very few people are building. But that's what we've historically seen in them. We're going to charge them the same exact linkage fee on a per square foot basis as a $4,000 mansion. And that's where we had the opportunity to say, we know that the city needs to be doing more, but this is a first step in which we can charge higher linkage fees on those larger units that are more than 1600 square feet. You can very easily fit a family friendly three plus bedroom home and 1600 square feet. So we want to still ensure that we're allowing for family friendly housing, which is much needed, but for those developments that are providing those kind of larger scrapes that are well over two or 3000 and selling at 1.2 plus million, that they're at least contributing in a more meaningful way to affordable housing if they do choose to move forward of those groups.
Speaker 2: Got it. Really appreciate that. I just felt like we hadn't quite clarified. There are so many different things that this proposal is doing. And so I wanted to just make sure that I understood exactly how it was addressing that challenge, which is something that I hear from my residents a lot. So. Thanks.
Speaker 0: No more questions. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Unleash. Maybe you could help clear the air on the issue of the parking and the exemption, because a lot of us were treated to a flood of emails over the weekend, the last couple of days, because of the feeling that agreement or a consensus that came out of the advisory committees before I went to the planning board and then planning boards suggested then and the council committee amended and put in the park total parking exemption. Back into the audience and we're being asked to vote no on it because of the impact that that will have. So explain to us how one would qualify for a complete exemption, because it doesn't apply to just the way I'm reading it. It doesn't apply to simply any development of ten or more units within a quarter mile of a by an enhanced transit corridor. So how does it work?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Similar to my response of Councilman Hines to the parking reductions and exemptions have been a continuous evolution throughout the duration. Yeah. So in the fall we had a much broader applicability of the parking exemptions and we kind of peeled it back and took it and got some feedback from advisory committee saying, Oh, you guys peel the back too far, but I get it. Let's keep moving this piece forward. Planning Board also made a recommendation and then we had the passage of at Luti further expanding that. I think the really important piece to note is, I think what you just articulated, it's not every project within a quarter mile radius, it's projects that are building affordable units onsite at a higher level of affordability. And it's those corridors that have had city capital investment. So Colfax, as it exists today, while there is incredible transit service and I certainly get to benefit from that, does not qualify for the parking exemption. They can certainly provide reduced parking as our code allows for parking reductions. But it's not until about four or five years out from now when the city has made that capital investment and we have fixed BRT stations in place, that that parking exemption can be leveraged once again by projects that are providing a higher level of affordability on site.
Speaker 4: Not only just factored in represent. Could you explain on, for instance, on BRT, actually on on the transit on the rail transit, the measurement is from the center line of the platform of the station and not just within a quarter mile anywhere along a track. Because of course, for instance, on the line, if I live at on Clayton Street, I can easily walk to a station. From there, I could walk all the way over to 40 in Colorado or down to 38 in Blake. So on the BRT, does it apply also to within a quarter mile of a BRT stop or the corridor itself, the entire cadre?
Speaker 0: Great question. As drafted, it applies to the entirety of the corridor. And the reason being is, one, it's much more interconnected and in all of the plans for BRT that have been executed thus far. Stops are always about a quarter mile or less apart, oftentimes far less. So we could create all these little bubbles run along the corridor that would be quarter mile radius. But in all the instances, at least with the Colfax corridor, they overlap. So for simplicity's sake, it's applied to the entirety of the corridor.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I also I had difficulty finding a Chapter 27, Article ten, so that I could understand what are what are the enhanced affordable housing projects, what makes it an enhanced project over and above the mandatory? What are the triggers for that?
Speaker 0: Yeah, certainly. So it should be kind of towards the end of the bill I can pull up the page, but if the screen will show right what I needed to do, the enhanced affordability requirements on page 20 of the slide deck. And so it's an increase of 2 to 3% dependent upon choice and market area. But it's important to note that that overall percentage increase applies to the entirety of the building. And so what we actually see is that in many instances this can more than double the affordable housing contribution by leveraging a higher percentage of affordable units on site.
Speaker 7: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: And you mentioned to Councilman Hines that we certainly don't expect that. Many builders would put up a new 120 unit, a 180 unit building and provide no parking. A bank probably wouldn't finance that.
Speaker 0: But I haven't seen any proposals of that scale come in. I think where we really see some of these projects being able to take advantage of lower parking ratios are some of our smaller, more affordable housing projects that are, you know, two or three stories. Typically less than 50 units are able to go to a very low parking alternative.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And thank you to the city staff answering those questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 424. Councilmember Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I first want to thank the entire team of people that were involved in bringing this forward. I think they were very thoughtful in trying to come up with some great recommendations in this these three bills. This is not intended to solve the entirety of the problem of our affordable housing needs and issues. I think it's one more tool in the toolbox. I know we used to have an inclusionary housing ordinance when we created the housing fund. I had argued that we should keep the IATO in place because that at least allowed us to still get affordable for sale housing. But that that was then. This is now. And I think the the measures that our city staff and community partners that came together to come up with recommendations on how we could address various price points in our area. Immediate income scale can happen with with this legislation that is before us tonight. I want to thank my two colleagues, Councilwoman Canete and Councilwoman Sandoval, for their participation on behalf of this body and for keeping council informed as this was moving through the process. This doesn't solve everything for everybody. And I know that we have spent a lot of money on addressing homelessness. Not all of it has been done to the satisfaction of everyone, but. We have spent unprecedented dollars during this time frame, and in large part because we benefited from receiving some federal dollars that allowed us to meet the needs of so many people that have been struggling. And as you heard earlier tonight, we have many people staying in hotels until, you know, we can continue to work towards getting them into housing. But it's a supply issue, and we need to continue to work towards looking at how we create that and also not being expected to be the city that solves this problem for the whole metro area. Neighboring counties have been building housing at rapid paces as well, and a lot of that is market rate housing, too, and it's creating the same effect in their communities. And when we see people having to move away because the price point as far as Henderson and and creating some strain on some of our rural communities that don't have transportation. So we've got more people driving in their cars. This kind of legislation I think is a huge step in the right direction and allows us to ensure that we are continuing to move the needle in meeting our needs. And, you know, like any legislation, we can always come back and revisit it, make changes to it, and look at how we can continue to make those tweaks that need to be made. It doesn't mean that tonight's bill is, you know, cast in stone, but it will be important to have in place as we move forward and try to meet the needs of our missing middle, which is a huge segment of our population that can't afford to stay here. It allows us to create more on the lower admi scale, but that is a large part of what we have been doing this whole time and in large part with our nonprofit housing developers that are building housing across the city. So I will be supporting this tonight. And again, thank everyone from CPD, from a host that worked with our community partners to bring this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Kenney.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President. I just chimed in briefly to provide a little orientation to those who might be following along, as Councilman Sandoval and I were clarifying where we're at procedurally. So there are three bills in this package, one of which is going to be having some amendment discussion. So I usually we do amendments first before we discuss the package so we can kind of comment on the whole package and what however it turns out, this bill does not have any amendments on it. But so I think what's best is I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote yes on this, and I'm going to reserve my comments for after we have the bigger discussion. So I'll be commenting on the entire package as a whole when we get to that bill. So it's a little different than I'm used to. All good. But I just wanted to, you know, urge folks to vote yes and then I'll have some longer comments on a next version of the package. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Council President. All right. Very good. Thank you, Councilman Canete. Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President My battery is saying that it's my laptop saying he's about to shut down, so hopefully I can get this through. So I want to bring up a comment that someone else had said, we have many other cities in the metro area and they also have housing affordability issues. And as Councilmember Ortega said, you know, it's not up to Denver for us to do everything on behalf of the entire metro area and frankly, on behalf of the entire state or region. So but we are doing what we can and we're trying to do our part. And in many ways, we're doing more than our part as as best we can. We also have fewer limitations that some of the other cities have. Like, for example, there's a city to our west that limited the development to 1% growth there, intentionally slowing development when and their, you know, their housing affordability is going up even more . And I think one of the comments on in testimony was about other cities like Boulder. And they are, you know, even more unaffordable than we are where the average home value is over $1,000,000. As as other commenters have already said. You know, we've been advocating our state counterparts to create these regulations. And and because of our success at the state level and encouraging our state counterparts to pass these laws, we now have expanding housing affordability. Like we also have additional control over the minimum wage. So Denver continues to work from the making housing more affordable perspective. We're also continuing to work from empowering people to get closer to a living wage. You know, we got the chance to increase the minimum wage above the state average and we jumped on it. Now we're more than $3.30 above the state minimum wage. That helps more than one in nine Denver rates in our city. This also will have a material impact for for people in our city. So we're doing what we can in many different angles. You know, this this is typically I mean, this is one of the many issues that our city, you know, struggles with and and policy struggles with because people want immediate results, but government cannot provide that. We've got to be prudent with the people's money, and we should consider the public when we consider how to spend the people's money. In 2008, the economy imploded, all housing projects stopped, and the Denver developers found other hobbies in other industries. Same with the construction workers in Denver. And then in 2013, Denver started to recover. And then shortly after that, Denver's housing market turned white high. We've had 130,000 people move to our lovely city since then, and Blueprint says we're expecting an additional 200,000 people to move to the city by the just the city of Denver by 2040. Housing development hasn't kept up, and we're doing our best to move quickly. That's part of the reason why prices continue to go up. But again, we've got that conflict where people want resolution. Now, that's not what government does. We want to make sure that we are methodical and measured with our our decisions. We're using the people's money. So I recognize that that we've got a lot of frustrated speakers who are just struggling to survive. We are doing what we can. And and and so I. Anyway, that's that. Thank you. I clearly am. I thought art is as solid as I could be if if it were earlier in the evening. Thank you, Council President.
Speaker 0: No worries. Councilman Haines, council member said.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm going to do my comments on the whole package. Since this next half, I'll be introducing in explaining the amendments. I want to contextualize my comments with with two titles that we've sadly been given. We were named the second top gentrifying city in the country recently and the top city displacing Latinos in the country. Supporters of this bill have touted that this will provide a steady and modest supply of affordable housing. After fighting for a decade for an opportunity to make it mandatory that developers build what Democrats need. Modest is hardly the approach we should be taking. The whole is just getting bigger and bigger and army is increasing as our population shifts to higher income earners. Therefore, affordable is slipping farther and farther out of reach for more Denver sites. The grace period we're giving for this to even kick in means that steady and modest impact will not even kick in fully for years. We've defined high costs markets in a way that ignores areas most vulnerable to displacement. We're ignoring the high social costs of displacement identified by our own gentrification study, and we've ignored the pleas from community to apply a higher cost to areas where we have driven change on purpose and development disproportionately is affecting black and brown families. This is a market based tool. We've established that relying on the market so far hasn't served us very well, has it? We've been relying on the market to self-correct and it has not corrected. We developers have not prioritized lower cost housing, despite that being the highest in demand. We fought for the ability to make mandates so that we didn't have to rely on developer generosity that was not manifesting at the needed levels. Yet here we are essentially codifying the status quo. We've written a policy to uplift developer power while ignoring the city's greatest needs. None of this was written from the perspective of people who are houseless or rent overburdened. People are going to say that this is a good start, but that's not true. If the linkage fees are low, you can't even change this for years and it doesn't actually solve the crisis we're facing. It's just virtues, virtue, signal policy, which we're getting really comfortable with these days. Community has been involved and many have pushed back only to be marginalized and overruled by the developers in the process. We heard that tonight. Best practices have been considered and a whole study was completed to tell us what would be a maximum justifiable fee . And we ignored our own study of best practices and that maximum justifiable fee. Why did we pay for the study? The entire proposal is nothing more than a repeat of the abysmally low linkage fee passed in 2016 that has locked us into our current situation. Incentives for developers linkage fees far below what data says we can justify this developer's sales pitch coming from our own planning department is real smooth. Sounds good. Took a long time and yet does very little for the people worried about a roof over their heads. It lets us off the hook because now we can say we did something and wait another decade before doing anything else. It's sad and it's infuriating. This body doesn't need my vote to pass this bill tonight. Your minds are made up. They always are. Well before the people speak. I too am still just a minority on this body. But the people out there, they need my vote tonight. They need it because they need to know that I see them. Someone sees them and understands this is smoke and mirrors and we all deserve more than developer crumbs. I will not support these bills tonight because they are a slap in the face to a city expecting us to treat this housing crisis as a real crisis. If a modest approach to putting out a blazing fire is the best we can do, everyone in this city should be outraged rather than placated by tonight's vote. I'd like CPD to go back to the drawing board and put the most impacted people in the city first for a change. But that's unlikely to happen. So I'm not supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Seeing no other members in the Q Council Bill 22, Dash 424 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash 424.
Speaker 2: Black eye.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca. No.
Speaker 4: When I.
Speaker 0: Turned.
Speaker 1: In my.
Speaker 3: Hands.
Speaker 2: I can each.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear i. Torres. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: One night and eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes council bill 22, Dash 424 has passed. Council members say to Barca, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash 426 on the floor for final passage.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code.
Approves a Denver Zoning Code text amendment to implement the recommendations of the Expanding Housing Affordability project to encourage provision of additional affordable housing beyond mandatory requirements, transition multiple existing incentive systems in various overlays, encourage on-site compliance with affordable housing requirements through other incentives, and correct minor errors and omissions from other recently adopted zoning code text amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0426
|
Speaker 0: Ten eyes council bill 22, Dash 424 has passed. Council members say to Barca, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash 426 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 22 dash 4 to 6 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Council Member State Abarca. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 20 2-4 26 be amended in the following particulars on page nine line four replace accessory dwelling units as defined in Article 11 of the Denver. When I had the option of 400 square feet of gross floor area to an accessory dwelling to an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Article 11 of the Denver zoning code.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: We need a we've got the motion to amend. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the amendment. Council members said.
Speaker 2: This amendment is based on our conversation in committee. When I aimed to increase the square footage that would be exempt from the linkage fee for an addition and that was denied. This seeks to make 80 use equal to a family trying to add on to their home. Currently, we're exempting 80 use from the linkage fee, but we're requiring people building over 400 square feet onto their house to pay the linkage fee. So this essentially says that an 80 over 400 square feet to we'll have to pay the linkage fee.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca And I believe that the feedback that we're hearing, it's cutting out your mike. If we could get you to move off the Zoom platform, it's interfering with the mic system. So we appreciate that. We've got other members in the queue. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'm wondering if I could call Analisa to answer a couple of questions. Thanks for being here with us. Can you talk to us about the decision to exempt.
Speaker 5: Accessory dwelling units from this policy and why that was included?
Speaker 0: Thank you for the question. So currently under today's linkage fee accessory dwelling units are exempt. And that was really coming out of an acknowledgment that this is a type of building form and housing type that we want to be encouraging in the city of Denver and not adding additional cost variances or a process to. So that is an existing exemption that we are proposing to carry through.
Speaker 2: Carry through that already that currently exists, correct.
Speaker 5: Do you know any other cities that would. Add additional and all the studies that we do, we always.
Speaker 2: Talked about pure cities. Have you seen.
Speaker 5: Any other cities.
Speaker 2: That would have country.
Speaker 5: Like zoning like.
Speaker 2: This or policy procedures like this where accessory dwelling units are exempt?
Speaker 5: And then now we're adding 400 feet to the.
Speaker 2: Linkage fee to them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So once again, there might be a program out there are plenty in our review. We have not found any peer cities that charge linkage fees on accessory dwelling units or similar in the like.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 4: The the amendment that Councilwoman CdeBaca is proposing sounds very reasonable to me. Let me ask you a couple of questions, and, Elise, about A, does the exemption for ADOS from the linkage fee, does that apply only to detached? In other words, if a homeowner were building an attached adu or creating an idea in their basement, well, I guess be hard to expand their basement. So let's go with an attached idea. And it was 400 square feet would or it was over 400 square feet. Would that homeowner have to pay the linkage fee?
Speaker 0: So the current exemption does not differentiate between an attached or a detached stadium. So long as it meets the definition of an accessory dwelling unit, it's exempted. And if I may, I know this wasn't part of your question, but I think what's been described verbally and what's been drafted and provided to us are two different pieces. So if if we can also just clarify what's actually in the draft amendment, that would be fantastic if I can be provided the opportunity.
Speaker 4: Could you clarify.
Speaker 1: That for us?
Speaker 0: So I think what's verbally described is that accessory dwelling units over 400 square feet would pay the linkage fee, meaning if I similar to if I have an existing home that's over 400 square feet of an addition, then that kicks in and pays the linkage fee as as I'm reading the draft and please attorneys clarify I am reading it as accessory. An addition of 400 square feet to an existing accessory dwelling unit would be exempt, which I think is actually the inverse of what we're trying to accomplish here. So as it's drift, it drafted the 80 you would be charged, but then in addition to that, you would not be charged. Just pretty counter and typically don't do additions to Adu. So I just wanted to clarify that because it was a little bit unclear in our review.
Speaker 4: Can we get a clarification? Because when I read the amendment before the meeting, I read it as being the square footage of a of a detached Adu or in Adu over and above the 400 square feet. And that's is that not how it operates?
Speaker 1: So I a sense that there are copies of the language from the exemption right before it and the exemption right before it exempts an additional four square feet or less. So this amendment would do what I describe and exempt an additional 400 square feet or less to an accessory dwelling unit.
Speaker 2: That was not the intent.
Speaker 4: Okay. So what exactly are we voting on then?
Speaker 2: I'm sure what would it take for you to update that so that it's any ADU over 400 square feet would have to pay the linkage fee?
Speaker 1: I can I can change that language right now.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Do we need to take a recess and be able to do that so that the rest of the council members understand what exactly were voting on this amendment? The motion on the floor?
Speaker 1: No. Yeah. We'd recommend a recess.
Speaker 0: Okay. Oh.
Speaker 1: We do need a vote to recess, though. Yes.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. May I get a motion to take a recess? All right. Second, thank you. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: But. I CdeBaca I when.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Turned in.
Speaker 1: No. Hines No.
Speaker 3: Can each now. Ortega, I.
Speaker 2: Everyone.
Speaker 6: Openness.
Speaker 3: Sandoval? No. Sawyer, I. Torres.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I'm Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. In none.
Speaker 3: I am sorry.
Speaker 2: My case. I changed my vote. I was. I was confused.
Speaker 0: Before you announce the results, Madam Secretary, Councilmember Sandoval would like to change your vote.
Speaker 2: Yes, I. I like me.
Speaker 5: And now I'm my.
Speaker 3: And Ortega was a yes. Sandoval. I'm sorry. One more time. Yours is a no. I'm a yes. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 2: With some vocab.
Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. It looks like we have everything. We have three knees and eight eyes.
Speaker 0: All right? Eight eyes we will take. Is 10 minutes enough time, angel.
Speaker 1: That should be playing.
Speaker 0: All right, great. We will take a ten minute recess and please be back in your seats by 10:51 p.m.. Thank you.
Speaker 5: The. Denver's HOV crosswalk signals are helping us cross streets more safely. Just press the button to activate the flashing yellow warning lights so drivers are alerted to slow down and stop giving pedestrians a safe way to cross. Visit Denver gov dawgs vision zero. In Denver, the road most traveled is full of potholes. Fear not worry traveler. Denver's Department of Transportation and Infrastructure is ready to fix the problem. To report a pothole at any one time or go online at Typekit, Gulfport. Click on the button, report a problem, fill out the quick questionnaire. And within 72 hours, crews will be sent to fix the problem. Call 311 or go online at pocket gov dot org.
Speaker 8: Elevating Denver is back with an all new episode May 10th. We're taking a look at the 16th Street Mall redesign. How to stay informed in case of an emergency and how Denver is helping to get guns off the street.
Speaker 6: But we do have control over the choices that our kids make.
Speaker 8: And we'll meet Deped's newest officer.
Speaker 2: Using a dog. That is a perfect tool for us to be able to reach those populations that normally wouldn't interact with us.
Speaker 5: If you're looking to adopt a new furry friend, locate a rec center, or you're looking to start a business. The city and county of Denver can help you with that. It's now easier than ever to access these resources with Denver gov dawgs megaman. You click the dropdown you need to find a world of information from help with your home, neighborhood car or even contacting your council member. It's all just a click away. The new mega menu is just one of many great features on the all new Denver gov dot org.
Speaker 8: Deaths from opioid overdoses are mounting in Colorado. These powerful drugs include heroin, morphine and fentanyl. Each can relieve pain and evoke intense feelings of pleasure. But the same drugs, whether prescribed by a doctor or bought on the street, can quickly turned deadly. Founded prescriptions like OxyContin and Vicodin, opioids can be found in illegal drugs such as heroin, as well as the synthetic opioid fentanyl. Fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. Even small doses and we're talking here, micrograms can be deadly. The opioid effects from fentanyl are heightened and highly addictive, even after the first dose. Fentanyl kills by interrupting the normal function of opioid receptors in the brain and throughout the body, including the brain's ability to regulate breathing. The high potency of fentanyl greatly increases the risk of overdose. Whether you're an addict or just experimenting with drugs, remember Denver? One pill can kill. For additional help, please visit Denver Gov dawg and search mental health services and support for a full list of substance use services.
Speaker 7: It's time to BYOB. Bring your own bag. That is to the grocery store, the.
Speaker 2: Liquor store, the hardware store and all.
Speaker 7: Retail stores in Denver. Starting July 1st, remember to bring your own bag when you shop. All retail stores will charge $0.10 for each.
Speaker 5: Plastic or paper bag provided at checkout. By bringing your own bag. You will help reduce waste, prevent litter, and protect our rivers and streams.
Speaker 7: Every year, Denver residents use over.
Speaker 5: 100 million disposable bags. So Denver will give away reusable bags to.
Speaker 7: Help you make the switch. Find more information.
Speaker 5: At Denver gov dot org slash. Bring your own bag. Bring your own bag. Keep your change.
Speaker 1: 1111111111.
Speaker 8: Here's what's coming into view on elevating Denver. An overcast sky, heavy fog and falling snow could not dampen the race spirits of students. Denver city officials and tribal representatives from Wyoming, Oklahoma and Colorado gathered in Genesee Park.
Speaker 7: Buffalo to Tonka. It's how you say it in Lakota. They're wild. They're free. They're a roam. They like to. Roaming herds. Like how? Native Americans. They used to be like roaming groups and they used to follow the buffalo. That's why we are called the buffalo people. Yeah. So we're seeing here today seem to them in coming them down here they they their roots, I guess their instincts of being indigenous and everything. And we're here to help them and we're gifting the buffalo to the reservations where they can be, be over there and roam free and give back to the people and get back to Mother Earth.
Speaker 8: On Monday, March 21st, Denver donated 33 young snorting bison to members of the Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes in an effort to restore the iconic animals to their tribal lands.
Speaker 0: In 2020, I ran the ordinance that established a land acknowledgment for Denver City Council. And it's just it's just something that reminds us of where we are and who came before us and and moreover, what our responsibility is to to honor and recognize that. And so that's a nod to our indigenous.
Speaker 7: Ancestors and those who, um.
Speaker 0: Who lived in Denver and Colorado before it was Denver. And, and today what results is we're in the second year of the Bison donation program, which was inspired by that land acknowledgment because it inspired Parks and Recreation to say, you know, we don't have to be auctioning off bison, we should be donating them to indigenous tribes or reestablishing the herds around the country. And so that's what we worked on together last year.
Speaker 1: To read words that are on the paper. The land acknowledgment doesn't mean a lot until you really take action. And so the bison, the buffalo are part of the land. So for us to be able to transfer these bison back to tribes across the nation to help them either improve their herd health or to actually start new herds is pretty amazing work that we're able to do.
Speaker 2: So our goal with this is to try to increase sustainability and genetic diversity among conservation herds across the country, specifically focusing on tribal herds and supporting the efforts of tribes to.
Speaker 9: Restore bison to their lands. A lot of times.
Speaker 7: You talk about things and this is actually fitting action to them and to see how. Think for the nation through the tribal. Times where it was just a once in a lifetime opportunity. Honestly, I've never seen anything like this happen on Pakistan, and this is really heart wrenching, just heartwarming.
Speaker 8: The Intertribal Buffalo Council, dedicated to restoring Buffalo to reservations, has returned about 20,000 bison. Some are used for meat, some for ceremonies, some for economic development. But for many, simply sharing the land again with animals they consider sacred. Is satisfaction enough? The significance of these ceremonial things goes back to the heart of who we are and our creation stories. What the buffalo means to us in our creation stories and as our lives are nurtured by their very existence and their. Why not? Our spirit remains strong with us, and we will hold them sacred truly throughout our lives.
Speaker 4: This is what we should have been doing. Decades. For decades. As owners and as stewards of these wonderful animals. Returning them as we had nurtured them and raised them. But returning them back to our indigenous leaders of this land, the caretakers of this land. These are.
Speaker 1: As pointed out.
Speaker 4: Your spiritual animals.
Speaker 1: It was important for me to be here to not only welcome the bison, but also to help journey them back to the reservation. Today, we're going to have a ceremony back home with them as well. And it's just going to be a welcoming and it's just exciting for the youth that everybody be a part of this.
Speaker 8: As the animals were brought to the transport trailers, their hooves echoed like thunder across the park. A circle of young men pounded drums and raised their voices in honor of the bison. One woman spoke indigenous words of comfort to ease the beasts in preparation for the journey home. This was. Stay elevated by subscribing to the city's YouTube page and stay tuned to our social media channels for more content. Don't miss our new episodes of Elevating Denver premiering each month. Thanks for watching Denver. Here's what's coming into view on elevating Denver. Denver's Department of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency is working hard to ensure a climate safe future by helping the city meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions completely by 2040. Certifiably Green Denver or CGD, is designed to assist in achieving these goals by helping businesses reduce their environmental impact and become more energy efficient and less wasteful , all at no cost to the business itself. Almost 2000 businesses of all sizes and shapes have benefited from the program.
Speaker 1: Claims William Powdery Harris I am.
Speaker 10: The generation Paula Dorey going on 97 years in business here. The generations ago came here to North Denver, started making sausage. You know, I kind of had this family recipe that kind of snowballed into making its way into grocery stores and eventually growing to the company that we are today. Sustainability is something we pride ourselves around here, so it felt like the right thing to do. We reached out to Certifiably Green Denver. We were like, Hey, how do we get the ball rolling on this? They worked with us, helped us, you know, check those criteria boxes off and we became certifiably green.
Speaker 1: Denver.
Speaker 9: I'm Kathleen Cronin. I'm the executive director of Earthlings. Earthlings. We started to connect people and bring people out from their isolation. Re reconnect folks that are homeless into the mainstream community and to allow people to move forward and get stabilized in their lives. We have a very high success rate on moving people from being unhoused to housed about 70% per year. EarthLink says part of his mission is to care for Earth. That's one of the that is the main thing we feel connects everyone together is to care for our common planet, earth. And so for many years, we've tried to be as green as we possibly can. And we found out about this program. So we decided to apply and it's been very helpful to us. So we're grateful.
Speaker 8: The program works in several ways. First, a team of experts will help a business create a plan to achieve sustainability goals at their own pace, including how to be more energy efficient and conservative with water use. The big step in the program comes from being fully certified. To achieve this, businesses must complete a list of criteria in five different categories designed to improve efficiency across all areas of the business.
Speaker 10: Put the LED lights around our facility where applicable. So with our six main freezers, the energy compressors we've modified to make them efficient, we work with a local company scraps to compost any leftover meat. We're moving towards bike racks. We currently provide all of our employees with RTD bus passes.
Speaker 9: And then it has allowed us to be able to say, you know, maybe we're not so good in this one area and we could do some improvements. So we've improved some of our composting techniques. And we've also looked at some of the.
Speaker 3: Things that happened.
Speaker 9: In the garden in terms of stormwater or drainage water to make sure that we're doing that.
Speaker 3: Properly.
Speaker 8: The benefits of the program are many. The staff can connect you to rebates, financial incentives and partners to help meet your goals. Plus, it's free and the staff will be with you the whole way.
Speaker 10: They're super helpful. You know, if we ever, you know, have troubles coming up with new ideas to implement, to be sustainable and within our own company, you know, they always have new, fresh ideas.
Speaker 8: The CGD staff is also working to push out funding to ensure equity across the program by providing an increase in services and supplies to help small minority and women owned businesses achieve their sustainability goals. There's also financial benefits to running an energy efficient business.
Speaker 10: Low flush toilets. In the sinks that we have, we've seen water bills go down, you know, with the energy efficient lights. We've seen our energy bills go down. So those are just kind of a lot of the great things we've seen come out of the program.
Speaker 8: And the benefits after certification are even greater. CGD certification comes with free advertising promoting the certified business as well as the tackle too affixed to their front door. This helps like minded customers and other businesses connect with these green operations.
Speaker 9: Well, the certification itself is wonderful. I think the real piece would be that we could also join with other folks in Denver that are trying to move towards a greener Denver. And so in that sense, the collaboration opportunities for us with other businesses and entities will be very important to us as we move forward.
Speaker 10: We encourage all of our vendors and all of our customers to do so. One of our space companies that we purchased our spices through Rocky Mountain Spice, they actually became certifiably green Denver after we, you know, kind of encouraged them to. So they kind of followed in our footsteps in that aspect.
Speaker 8: If you have a business that's interested in becoming more sustainable and help the city achieve its climate goals. Go to certifiably green Denver Dawg. To get started.
Speaker 9: I think it's just important that people know about us, but also know that maybe some of these things anyone can do and we really all have to work together to bring us into the the climate goals that the city has. It's very important for the city to be a leader in this in this area.
Speaker 8: Stay elevated by subscribing to the city's YouTube page and stay tuned to our social media channels for more content. Don't miss our new episodes of Elevating Denver premiering each month. Thanks for watching Denver. Here's what's coming into view on elevating Denver.
Speaker 9: When we think about fashion, typically people start to think about New York, Milan, Paris, London, right. So what does Denver have to offer? And I think that in order for those four cities, those big cities, to have new, fresh talent, they look to smaller markets and smaller demographics. So what we can offer is, is a platform for emerging talent that maybe just doesn't have that capability of being noticed in those larger cities. And we can give those emerging stars that that time. I'm Hailey Hota, and I am the runway producer and director for Denver Fashion Week. Tonight actually is all about local couture. So we're going to focus tonight on original pieces. So each individual piece, there's nothing else like it, right? That's what couture means, that there's one of a kind. So each segment is going to be very individual all the way from, you know, somewhat wedding dresses all the way down to, you know, corsets and things like that. So pottery can really mean anything. My name is Cora Varsano, and I'm the designer of Avocado Designs. I grew up in Lakewood. My parents still live in the same home that I grew up in, actually. So I started designing a year and a half ago. I have a love of, like, sixties movies, a little old school glam, I would say. So my first two gowns, the whole point of it was bold and beautiful. Pretty much the glamorous elegance of the sixties, like Hollywood sixties. And then I brought that into this new collection. The funniest thing that I do when I make dresses that I watch Golden Girls the whole time, don't ask me why. That's just my go to. But I feel like once I'm in it, it's just like you just keep going. So I feel like I can make them pretty quickly. It was probably about two months ago that I said I would do it. So it's been a whirlwind of making ten gowns, but it's come along pretty well, I would say. So yeah, I think it's important to highlight local talent and because, you know, local designers, they're artists, right? Like we hear this about artists all the time, starving artist. But it's the only the only that because they don't know the resources, they don't know where to start. So creating a platform where they can actually come together with a community of like minded individuals, they can get the resources that maybe they didn't know were accessible to them. So what we do is create a stage for that emerging talent to know where to go next and how to elevate each time that they do. I feel like the platform is huge because there's not a lot of fashion going on in Denver in this kind of realm. A lot of people are trying to start runway shows, but really Denver Fashion Week is the first one that actually did one and has done it pretty well and has gotten a lot of people to it. So I feel like for designers, it's kind of like your moment for a Denver fashion in general to like actually show what you have. A lot of people get to see your designs. I feel like ever since a lot of the pictures are on the pamphlets and on their Instagram and things like that, a lot of people have reached out to me about my designs. So that's been like a great way for me to be able to talk to people about that and kind of show more of my designs that people usually wouldn't see. But everyone's been so nice and really welcoming, which has been really awesome. And all the models are so great and really excited. I'm really happy to see it all come together. So inclusivity is actually the center of Denver Fashion Week. So what we offer to models is a fully inclusive platform that we have, you know, models from all all creeds, all colors, all heights, all sizes. We do not cast based on anything other than confidence and conviction. So really, if you think it, it's pretty possible. So if you want to come out in model, like we just tell anyone and everyone that you can have that chance and that opportunity. So our nonprofit this year is Dress for Success. Denver And they're actually very on par with supporting women. Get professional attire and support for going on job interviews or honestly just going out in the workforce. It's kind of like sometimes, again, we don't know what resources we have or what to do with those resources. So to be able to have someone to go to is such a huge thing, especially when you go to a job interview and you have a brand new jacket or a brand new shirt. It does something mentally to you. It's not just fashion, right? So I think that dress for success Denver is an amazing partnership for a nonprofit this season. If you've never been to a Denver Fashion Week runway experience, expect to be excited because honestly, every single night is centered around a different theme because it's for everyone, right? We have all the kids show street, wear couture. So really it could be something brand new to you that maybe you're just like, I just want to try this night. But I definitely think originality, excitement, creativity and community. I think that especially after the past few years, community is such a huge thing that we've all been lacking. And I don't want to speak for everyone when I say I'm very excited to bring these creatives together again and be able to have us back on the runway doing what we love.
Speaker 8: Stay elevated by subscribing to the city's YouTube page and stay tuned to our social media channels for more content. Don't miss our new episodes of Elevating Denver premiering each month. Thanks for watching Denver.
Speaker 1: But as I mentioned to some of you, I started reading your search results.
Speaker 4: Showed me sales figures for the last two years. The last three characters compared to 340.
Speaker 1: Parcels in the city that have been sold. And I had used actually two years on and the median sales price for.
Speaker 11: Those partial is 900 and thousand.
Speaker 1: So the addition of you to the problem rate increases.
Speaker 6: The value I want to resell.
Speaker 1: Who are the potential buyers? They are not people in the market or in publishing. So I think it's only fair that when you start in construction are you that is over 430.
Speaker 4: That it should be treated the same as a homeowner who is in an order to buy. According to our verbiage, they're all for essentially the same first house apartment. And for that reason, I was talking.
Speaker 11: And you can. That's why I replied.
Speaker 7: The Examiner doesn't appear to help know as well. I didn't support.
Speaker 11: The prior version that expanded the parameters of the square footage that didn't pass. And I noted that I don't.
Speaker 7: I feel like this is punitive in making use of that.
Speaker 11: Same square footage and for different people, I suppose, to make.
Speaker 7: Sure folks are.
Speaker 11: Able to stay in the community. So I don't think. All right, us. Out there, that is.
Speaker 7: She was going to your house and not including you because of the requirement that an.
Speaker 11: Interview has to be considered. So this is the spirit of dating. People with less financial resources. That's why I think it's important. I just have seen entertainment in bring back the increasing the earlier version and increase the issue of the House to 800 square feet. Right now it's coming down to an option that doesn't allow us to speak.
Speaker 7: To be heard by the people.
Speaker 11: Fighting for it. They don't know. Objection to. Response to. Capital requirements.
Speaker 7: And I agree with Elfman's political philosophy about God exists for all of the reason that they've seen us now. I also think it's important to note that.
Speaker 11: While we as a city government are hoping to of.
Speaker 7: To build a use.
Speaker 11: For affordable housing. Many people in our city who are building these units are holding up.
Speaker 7: Using the research requirements. So, you know, I think that there's got to be a balance here somewhere.
Speaker 11: And I think this works. And so I have a good balance. Yes. All right. However, I often. I don't think that we should go down something for everyone.
Speaker 1: Because some people use.
Speaker 11: Crisis. Community Member.
Speaker 7: Pine Valley Secretary.
Speaker 11: Roll Call on event. Steve Walker, I. When I heard, you know how I know Canadians know.
Speaker 7: Or take a stand on. So I had I thought no.
Speaker 11: Black lives matter. But now I was secretary custodian. And now.
Speaker 7: Three eyes.
Speaker 11: The me. So the main story I.
Speaker 7: Do that or do you sit? They'll tell us. Number one, if you had a nasty.
Speaker 11: Okay. We. Everything else will matter to us. The most important for us. Okay. Do you work by 7/8? The M&A.
Speaker 7: 2.2. That works. Council Bill 43 that 46,000.
Speaker 11: Or four 5000 comments by Marcus Council on bill 40 Cabinet member to.
Speaker 7: Beijing Council president.
Speaker 11: To understand where we are tonight, you have to understand.
Speaker 7: Where we've been. In 2011, the city of Denver has zero local dollars going to affordable housing. No housing department. No renter protection policies. No renter assistance programs. A state law prohibited us from requiring anything from rental development when the city wasn't involved in lander subsidies. And we have one policy, one requiring developers of for sale homes to build 10% and 80% of emi i to pay a very modest fee. That was it. We did have a set of agreements on large developments. The formal state pharmacy in Lowry, Central Platte Valley and Green Valley Ranch. And they created thousands of affordable homes. But we're typically 15 or 20 years of affordability. That is what we had. That was the status quo in 2011. The leadership from this council, in partnership with the administration, Denver, has fundamentally transformed that story. We created a permanent housing fund in 2016 with two sources of revenue. We swapped that inclusionary housing ordinance that was only doing a handful of for sale units and a few hundred thousand dollars a year. And we swapped it for a linkage fee that generates millions of dollars a year for rental and for sale housing from zero up all the way through the income structure and homeownership. It was the first ever fee that the city had charged to develop and to mitigate its impacts. The first development fee of any kind. There were claims the sky could fall and development would cease. And it was also a very close vote. It was criticized for not being good enough and this council barely passed it. The fine was doubled in 2018, with additional revenue for cities in just five years. The fund created 2500 new homes, 400 reserved homes, and served 63 primary households with housing programs, including more than 3200 with rent utility assistance. We kept negotiating agreements on big developments, but we started to fight for a broader mix of incomes, including 30% of BMI and below. And in both our aggressive investment rules and our negotiations, we stopped negotiating for 20 years of affordability. We started negotiating for 61st and more recently, now 99 years for perpetual affordability. We filed a rental assistance and eviction defense, and we created protections against discrimination from source of income. We created a rental license to ensure housing is safe with renter notices of rights and resources. And our legislature, led by Denver members, has transformed renter protections at that level, too. And just like we doubled the housing funds to grow the impact of a proven solution, we bond back. And then we brought in eviction defense and we've grown rental assistance. But until today, 90%, 90% of by rights development in this city did not build any affordable homes on site. That gap in that whole trajectory is why we're here today. So in 2021, we've got this city, our lobbyists, our mayor, this council. We fought with partners from across the state to change the state law prohibiting local regulation of new development for affordable rental. And we won. And today, we are passing the state of Colorado's first sweeping inclusionary housing requirements that include rental and for sale, free from any legal cloud, the first new ordinance without any legal cloud in two decades. So why? Why would the simple idea of requiring affordability and development be so controversial? Well, it's because we've talked about it tonight. Inclusionary Housing First is the market to create affordability. It can only require as much affordability as the market can bear if it requires too much for the market to be financed and still make a profit. If it if it doesn't provide for that profit. It doesn't happen.
Speaker 11: The market will build the project and there will be no affordable homes. So some landowners and developers.
Speaker 7: Simply do not like any intervention in their market. They don't want any impacts to their profit. Others are maybe philosophically opposed, but they think the details go too far. They think it won't work with the market. And we may not have heard from many of those developers tonight, but we have heard from them in our options and you've heard from them in the media. They are largely opposed to this ordinance over the past. 15 years, this city has performed three three independent analysis of the numbers related to housing policy and development. Every time it's working, the industry has claimed that the sky will fall. But every time this city has chosen the standards that the independent analysis pointed us to and development has continued. And affordability has been created through either units being built or funds that are reinvested three times. This has happened, including tonight. But this policy is also understandably controversial among those who cannot help but question a policy that is designed to work with a market that sells housing a fundamental human right to the highest bidder. It is understandable that it would be controversial to harness that market. But development isn't the only heartbreak in this market. Prices have increased and displaced. Displacement has occurred near development. But private owners of long standing housing are also selling their land and their homes to the highest bidders. And we can also point to neighborhoods that have seen little to no development. They have also seen massive displacement. My own neighborhood, Park Hill, is one. Westwood is another. There are many neighborhoods experienced in displacement with very little development.
Speaker 11: Development is not the only aspect affecting the market in our city.
Speaker 7: So what's the answer? Greater public and community ownership of land to break the cycle of selling land to the highest bidder is critical, and Denver has increased our purchase of land in public land, use of public ownership, and then done long term pieces for permanent affordability. We are doing more and more of that, taking that millions out of that market and and making it long term for the community benefit. We've also invested in our trusts and other models that permanently take land out of that market, that broken market, selling land to the highest bidder. But we should not is the opportunity to leverage new development for new affordability in projects where we are getting none today, simply because this one market based tool can't solve all our housing needs or goals. This policy matters, and it has value in these critical ways. It incentivizes building homes on site and has extraordinarily high buyout fees that are six times higher than some of the buyout fees in the original ordinance that it is replacing from ten years ago. It lowers the minimum requirements to 60% or an average of 70%, and you only get to 70%, by the way, if you build more homes. You don't get that as a choice unless you build more homes. Every single affordable home under this policy will be within the income guidelines and eligible for voucher holders who might have. It comes from 0 to 30%. And this policy requires 99 year ability in every case, every case, permanent affordability. That is new, that has value. It takes that long and it takes that unit out of the market forever. It is restricted forever. It cannot be sold to the highest bidder. It also ensures that linkage fees will rise over time and make up for some of the loss of fees. Because we will lose fees because all of the rental development that was paying these before is now going to build homes instead. And so we will be litigating that with these fees. These things have a value that is different than necessarily being enough to solve the entire problem. But that does not mean it does not have value. For the homes that will be provided to the workers and to the individuals who will live in those homes. 90% of by right development. If this ordinance fails tonight, 90% of Viread developed and will continue to require zero in affordability. That's the consequence of a no vote tonight. You can frame it however you want. If you vote no, the result will be no requirement. So I want to thank the folks who were really instrumental to getting us here first and foremost. State legislators Susan Lansky and Serenity Gonzalez Vieira. They were the lead sponsors in the House, but also Senate co-sponsors on Xilinx and Rodriguez and all of those in the legislature who voted for the passage of the bill that made this possible. CMO Colorado Municipal League healthier. Colorado were leaders in the work at the state legislature, and we wouldn't be here today without them. And then for the city ordinance, I want to share the things that some of my colleagues have already shared. Obviously, our mayor for supporting all of the team and resources that went into this community planning and development host attorneys. But we also had outside partners again, who helped shape push some of those increases to linkage fees that Councilman Hines mentioned. Those were advocates pushing for those things like Enterprise and healthier Colorado and others who helped to give input and shape. And then to my council colleague, Councilwoman Sandoval. It is such a pleasure working with you. You and I just I appreciate the perspective you bring, the ideas and the things that you see in the zoning code and the ways that you help to really improve this policy to all of our colleagues who engage so deeply and help shape a lot of the details as it evolved, as it went through the process. There's just a lot of thanks for the time the folks spent trying to get everything we could out of this policy. And so it was really a team collaborative effort. And so we will look back in ten years and there will be additional new things on this list. This is not our once in ten year policy.
Speaker 11: I described the almost annual set of impacts we've been making on housing and homelessness, and we will.
Speaker 7: Continue that piece. But this piece, this gap will now be closed and we can now build on it just like we have all these other policies over the years. So with that, I'm really excited to vote yes on this ordinance package tonight.
Speaker 11: Thank you. University of California, Santa.
Speaker 7: Amy.
Speaker 11: Shania Twain. The best kind of country music 20. Now.
Speaker 7: In reality.
Speaker 11: I wish we would have had this probably 20 years ago. In Pakistan there. All of the things that I heard when I was growing up that we had it, which is so essential right now in our. It is radically changing, and I believe this policy will help rectify. They had made a very thoughtful approach that indicated that the state has to be 21. Changed the nature of the working. We are diverse.
Speaker 7: And we have a.
Speaker 11: Perspective and I only have heard a lot. So this came back to me, back at least in part because we had been active in battle for that kind of hacking operation. So that respect.
Speaker 7: At it's night.
Speaker 11: The pain felt I was unhappy and then becomes more and more difficult for me. My family and I still have to fight for that.
Speaker 7: Big hearted, incredibly complex situation. And this is just one of.
Speaker 11: The solution being brought forward by there is a lot of other things I hope to make sure that they follow, not just the fact that they will be paired with other health education and. And eventually we think that the best time to try to 20 years ago and a few years ago look back at me still waiting that here tonight around 11:30 a.m. in our dedicated.
Speaker 7: 235 plants.
Speaker 11: In the country and just say okay we need to make pragmatically.
Speaker 7: Despite all.
Speaker 11: Our. Problem is that things are out of date for making sure they can keep track of time and provide a schedule. Effective policy making procedures for making sure that the staff has the vaccine. Always campaigning can be hard pressed. And most.
Speaker 7: Importantly, they need to get.
Speaker 11: Over for a maximum recommended in devastating cases and for recording a. In order to come with the policy that.
Speaker 7: 27th May 2019.
Speaker 11: Capital. Certainly happening on the no fly zone. We talked about that for years. And at that point, I think. I think council members have herself. That was.
Speaker 7: But we're not going to use it.
Speaker 0: So anything here is resistant and we have know. Good work you've done and how important this is.
Speaker 1: And I really want to acknowledge the.
Speaker 2: Council members for being of them.
Speaker 11: All, for your work on this project and the countless.
Speaker 6: Hours that you.
Speaker 11: Spend losing and learning and working with all.
Speaker 6: Those safety management colleagues and brands, you are proud to be part of this project that made you.
Speaker 11: So much both credit and awe as providers. And I invite you to vote on this and the next bill. And if more affordable housing in our city that is protected in perpetuity so that a 17 year old Paul uncomfortable talking to dashboard chases. Hi, Ortega.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 11: Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres, I blacked out. You know, I can't. Hi. Hi. Hi. Madam President.
Speaker 7: I am the Secretary of Chris Cuomo.
Speaker 11: And announce the results.
Speaker 7: 185 ten. I can still try to do that. Or she said.
Speaker 11: Past parents have to if you. After I moved back, I'm still 22. That's 45 on my consideration in the past and new categories and.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning housing, revising provisions related to the linkage fee; repealing incentives for affordable housing; and adopting affordable housing requirements applicable to the creation of new dwelling units.
Amends Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to revise provisions related to the linkage fee, repeal incentives for affordable housing and adopt affordable housing requirements applicable to the creation of new dwelling units. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06062022_22-0425
|
Speaker 11: Past parents have to if you. After I moved back, I'm still 22. That's 45 on my consideration in the past and new categories and.
Speaker 7: I'm still 45 in the fall based.
Speaker 11: On my. Right next to me for my final strike.
Speaker 7: I had five. I was eight. And I was called Interstate ten and I was fired. Sure, I was actually one of the 4931 strike sections.
Speaker 11: U.S. air strikes that show three, four, five, six, seven.
Speaker 7: Eight, four straight lines 3840 45853513.
Speaker 11: Reporting and replacement text has remained attached to all other sections, most recently in Houston. You may need. Right. That's what I heard. Or there was a powerful argument. And I will check if I have spoken to her here. We're not. When you look back. All right. Okay. Have one more thing about this one that if you're following that thing here, this American worker with the very. Station area is in. So I guess I need to hire a spy.
Speaker 7: And actually and this is the thing that really fights closer is to compliance with a sworn statement.
Speaker 11: For the fact that I can't afford anything else. But I expect that we are. Urban planning process for neighborhoods should not be getting a. So I heard.
Speaker 7: From when you say this.
Speaker 11: Time zone in some areas is to maintain overall development that has to be.
Speaker 7: Which means.
Speaker 11: Continuing to drive development in the area of the town, very much happening.
Speaker 7: At the expense of everyone living there. It's not consistent.
Speaker 11: With our neighborhood plan, and it does not promote quality, affordable care. It increases the likelihood of danger and my safety concerns related to the past.
Speaker 7: Due to infrastructure.
Speaker 11: That is not quite up to the technology area. Thank you. Can I just take the question for always a little bit of clarification? So the current 38 lane overlay starts at 12 storeys and goes up and the portfolio is being built in.
Speaker 7: Is that right? Yeah. Sounds like it's.
Speaker 11: A three, four, four, five, three eight to have all the features all over the floor. Okay. So thank you.
Speaker 7: So that and.
Speaker 11: I guess we need a little more explanation of exactly what you meant at the council.
Speaker 7: Meeting about the features.
Speaker 11: I guess so. The affordability of things. Back in the day it was designed. Catcher. Yes. And so the dates are based on the case by date. And of course, there is a lot of information like that. And so they were only allowed to go up to those times if they. And now this is going away. And we know they actually did work. I needed to go somewhere to make some cash. But there is a basic zoning. We should map of zoning. All of this should be breaking it down. The neighborhood plan calls for five streets in that area. The. What this does is it offers multiple places for us to reside where it does not. And. Never mind that. To have this conversation. So I.
Speaker 7: Think. Thanks for the clarification.
Speaker 11: Thank you for your. That was basically. Secretary of. I went out of her house last. Cashman Clinic. No, Ortega. So simple. Go so far as I know. Many of you know, Madam Secretary. And now with the result. I was. I think you. I mean, I hate to.
Speaker 7: Nine days to high tech event, they'll have a bill.
Speaker 11: To add to their Fortune five. 1000 comments under. She vowed to keep fighting. The. Second, third of all. When you die, you work.
Speaker 7: You find.
Speaker 11: Hi. But what? All right. Frankly, I. I can take a sample. I swear I saw it. I. That was our. Name. Five on five. 3:30 a.m. announcements on Monday, July 12. The Capital required to carry out two. The voting block. 13 by 1335, 40 was 40. Any protests against the law must be filed on Council of Year. You know, there been. And a lot of that wasn't enough money to spend the money on dirty. The five.
|
Bill
|
A bill or an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties in the 38th & Blake station area to remove the 38th and Blake Station Area Incentive Overlay District (IO-1) and adjust underlying base zone districts.
Approves a legislative map amendment to rezone multiple properties in the 38th & Blake station area to remove the 38th & Blake Incentive Overlay District (IO-1) and adjust underlying base zone districts for certain properties in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.